Poll of the Day > Do you honestly think Trump has done a good job?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Kyuubi4269 posted...

darkknight109 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There are suitable qualifications, but politicians don't have them.

It's funny to me that you think this is true.

It's funny to me that you think you've seen a competent politician.

a) When did I say that?
b) What makes you think I haven't? You don't even know where I live or where I've lived.
---

Its pathetically laughable and childish that Kyuubi thinks he's seen a real human politician. If he can't even recognize lizard people how are we supposed to take him seriously
---

Blighboy posted...

Its pathetically laughable and childish

Ew, stop making me cringe with your edgy senior year in high school vocabulary.

GanglyKhan posted...

Blighboy posted...

Its pathetically laughable and childish

Ew, stop making me cringe with your edgy senior year in high school vocabulary.

It is beyond philistine and nigellian how Gangly Khan does not recognize mockery
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

TheWorstPoster posted...

WastelandCowboy posted...

He's done a good job at dividing the country and bringing the closeted homophobes, racists, and intolerant alt-right out into the open.

Don't credit Obama's accomplishments to Trump.

You're so funny when you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

There was no obvious division among the country when Obama was president and if there was, people just kept it to themselves. With Trump, it's balls to the walls with crazy.

As if there wasn't almost a race war when obama was president
---

Lol. No.
---

Btw this is the greatest president we've ever had. Trump will go down in history as the reason America became great again and I'm so glad I'm alive to see it.

#maga
#hellyeah
#america
---

Meh, I think he is about average. I have never been a fan and now he is president it is even less.
---

Yellow posted...

Tax cuts, for the rich, temporarily for the poor.
Pretended there was a problem that wasn't being fully addressed and went to extreme lengths to solve that problem. Destroyed the Dreamers act, separated families, ICE...
Met with Kim, ok, sure. His cronies still botched it when they went on air staying they would stab him in the back immediately.
What wall? Not even the Republicans want that dumb idea.

Im not rich and benefited from the tax cut, so did many other people in businesses that gave employees much deserved raises and/or bonuses, its about time the hard working American got something back

He didnt destroy DACA, it was set to expire on its own. There are proper proceedures to get into the country legally and become a citizen (recently became one myself). Breaking the law and entering illegally costs tax payers money and makes it a lot harder for those who have done everything correctly to become citizens. No, DACA was faulty from the get-go, along with Obamas pardoning of thousands of illegals

If you're referring to the separated families at the border, dont forget a lot of the kids are there by themselves. ICE officials are just doing their jobs, I'll never understand the movement to abolish them.. you wouldnt stop a school crossing guard or a security officer at a bank would you?

Everything went and continues to go well with North Korea, they've honored their promises to start denuclearization, sent home remains of US troopa, and Kim and Trump even have another meeting coming up.

What wall? You mean the one where prototypes have been created and presented to the President and plan to go up soon in areas he's gone to personally visit?
---

Does anybody actually think there is every going to be a 1900 mile border wall?
---

Cacciato posted...

Does anybody actually think there is every going to be a 1900 mile border wall?

Everyone that thinks trump is doing a good job.
---

His biggest accomplishments are rolling back environmental protection laws for the sake of temporary economic gains, I can't abide by that
---

JixHedgehog posted...

Im not rich and benefited from the tax cut, so did many other people in businesses that gave employees much deserved raises and/or bonuses, its about time the hard working American got something back

And yet analysis shows the vast majority of money saved by corporations was not spent raising wages, but on stock buybacks and dividend payments. Which, when you think about it, makes sense - the tax rate does not determine employee wages, the job market does, and a company's primary obligation is to their shareholders, not their employees.

JixHedgehog posted...

He didnt destroy DACA, it was set to expire on its own.

Wrong. Seriously, where did you even get this info, because it's not even a little bit correct.

The program was not set to expire; Trump ordered the justice department to stop accepting new applications. A conservative Texas judge rejected the Trump administration's rationale for ending the program a few days ago and ordered it restarted (which he would not have been able to do if the program was expired).

JixHedgehog posted...

Breaking the law and entering illegally costs tax payers money

The Trump administration's own analysis (which they tried to bury when they found out the results) proves this is not true. Over eight years, illegal immigrants paid a net $65 billion more into social services than they got out (largely because illegal immigrants still frequently pay taxes of various sorts, so as not to come under scrutiny by the IRS, but are ineligible for nearly all the social programs those taxes fund).

JixHedgehog posted...

No, DACA was faulty from the get-go

DACA was a program to grant amnesty to individuals brought to the US as children, who had no say in their relocation and know nowhere else. Most are productive citizens; some have served in the armed forces. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that a program that allows them to continue being productive citizens of the US.

Notably, this is a page straight out the songbook of conservative icon Ronald Reagan, who did pretty much the exact same thing in the 80s, for the exact same reasons.

If you're referring to the separated families at the border, dont forget a lot of the kids are there by themselves.

You can't "separate" a child who is an unaccompanied minor (and the overwhelming majority of those crossing are not unaccompanied). Seriously, don't be obtuse.

Everything went and continues to go well with North Korea, they've honored their promises to start denuclearization

You wouldn't be interested in real estate, would you? I have this prime oceanfront property in Kansas, you see...

Seriously, the government's own analysis has shown that North Korea has made no efforts to denuclearize - in fact, the US and North Korea aren't even in agreement on what "denuclearization" entails - and satellite photos have shown they're just moving nuclear production to another location while trying to pretend they're not.

Kim played Trump like a cheap fiddle and got an end to US/SK war exercises and a reprieve from China on sanctions; Trump got a bag of magic beans and keeps trying to insist they're made of gold.

What wall? You mean the one where prototypes have been created and presented to the President and plan to go up soon in areas he's gone to personally visit?

Yes, the one that hasn't had a single brick constructed yet, and which has zero money allocated to it other than to repair and upgrade sections of already existing border fences.

Keep dreaming - the wall is dead in the water.
---

Bush and Obama proved it's dangerous to have a president, one by declaring war on Iraq, the other by declaring war on the police

Kennedy proved it's dangerous to be President.

Carter proved we don't need a President.

And a knuckleheaded reality show "personality" that makes a fool of himself on social media... maybe not so bad.
---

dancer62 posted...

Bush and Obama proved it's dangerous to have a president, one by declaring war on Iraq, the other by declaring war on the police

OK, so, I'm not going to pretend that the Iraq war was anything other than a massive piece of idiocy that went a long way towards destroying the US global hegemony, but can we please drop the myth that this was Bush and only Bush?

Bush sought - and received - Congressional approval for the war, with 69% approval in the House of Representatives and 77% approval in the senate. Lest you think this was a purely Republican fuck-up, a majority of Democratic senators approved of the war.

All this would be easy to pin on "the elites", but everyone is very quick to forget how keen the public was on the war. At the time, 70% of the American public were in favour of the Iraq war - the politicians were very accurately representing their constituents wishes.

There's a lot of blame to go around for the Iraq war, and Bush certainly earned a large chunk of it, but this was far from "the president forced a war on everyone that no one else supported".
---

@darkknight109, just want to say thanks; you have far more patience than I do, and in my own topic at that.
---

Magus 10 posted...

@darkknight109, just want to say thanks; you have far more patience than I do, and in my own topic at that.

When you're getting paid Soros Bucks it makes things a lot easier
/S
---

WastelandCowboy posted...

He's done a good job at dividing the country and bringing the closeted homophobes, racists, and intolerant alt-right out into the open.

The country really started dividing itself with the advent of social media. It cant be blamed on a president but to say it wasnt divided during Obama's presidency would be incorrect

Canadian two cents:

No. The world is a ****fest currently, and America is not helping. Ask any historian or political scientist. Or at least ask 90% of them, and not the 'public intellectuals' seemingly in the pocket of millions. Obama was a better than average president from an outside perspective, but was still largely complicit in the American political system, which commits atrocities regularly. By all accounts, the economy was on the up and up while Obama was on the way out, allowing Trump to continue a lifestyle of inheritance. America's getting messy. Canada is too. Let's not even mention Italy.
---

ReturnOfFa posted...

By all accounts, the economy was on the up and up while Obama was on the way out

People keep saying this but stats say otherwise tbh

OhhhJa posted...

ReturnOfFa posted...

By all accounts, the economy was on the up and up while Obama was on the way out

People keep saying this but stats say otherwise tbh

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/07/27/trumps-economic-scorecard-18-months-into-his-presidency/#3ce548741283

meh. he's done ok on a few things. overall, very little, besides being a massive cock.
---

The worst. He's like a slightly less racist, significantly less successful Hitler.
---

The weird thing about Trump is that the "good" things that have happened since he was in office (Wall Street numbers rising, etc.) are less because of what he's done, and more because of who he is. Corporations know he's going to look out for himself and (by extension) them as well, so they're more willing to take risks for long-term growth (which actually helps everyone, both moneywise and jobwise).

Most of the "bad" things that have happened are either 1) offensively bad policy decisions (taking children at the border), and 2) offensively bad communication towards opponents. Most of the hardship he's caused is emotional, not practical.

darkknight109 posted...

his trade wars have produced absolutely no concessions and he's now having to bail out farmers that have been harmed by his spat with China (no word yet on the various other industries that are being stung by tariffs);

The thing is, the monetary struggles (like the farmer costs rising, due to tariffs), are being handled in a way that the farmers still receive their money, since the government subsidizes their losses, but every other industry that is NOT negatively impacted will see growth (making up for the subsidies, plus the income from the tariffs themselves). Our piss-poor trade agreements are helpful for OTHER countries, not us, so if we're ever going to get out of our import reliance, these policy changes are unavoidable.
---

shipwreckers posted...

but every other industry that is NOT negatively impacted will see growth (making up for the subsidies, plus the income from the tariffs themselves)

I'm actually struggling to think of very many industries that will benefit from the trade wars. Maybe specifically makers of steel? But literally everything made out of steel is impacted negatively, so I don't see that making up for anything.

As far as I'm aware, the software industry hasn't really been impacted, but they're also not going to be growing because of the new trade policies either. Trump's xenophobia is probably harmful for talent acquisition in the software space as well, so that probably isn't great either.

shipwreckers posted...

Our piss-poor trade agreements are helpful for OTHER countries, not us, so if we're ever going to get out of our import reliance, these policy changes are unavoidable.

In what way are our trade agreements piss-poor?
---

Magus 10 posted...

In what way are our trade agreements piss-poor?

Are you asking rhetorically, or do you really not know? Free trade agreements benefit exporters, not importers. By enacting tariffs, you help prevent foreign providers from undercutting domestic businesses, since foreigners can very often churn out products at lower costs (leading people to naturally pick the cheaper option, and why wouldn't they?).

Since tariffs are designed to protect domestic businesses from those issues, when you remove tariffs (which is EXACTLY what free trade agreements do), you may save a few bucks on an item at the store, but you give all the actual job creation and economic overhead to the foreign countries you're buying from, and neglect that economic growth from your own domestic companies. That's why our free trade agreements are "piss poor." Granted there is a balance to it (and I'm not saying we should go all Smoot-Hawley on their asses), but tariffs are a proven concept that have been around for centuries.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that a college-educated person like yourself already knows this. It's sad that I have to explain what we all read in our 6th grade Social Studies books.
---

shipwreckers posted...

Magus 10 posted...

In what way are our trade agreements piss-poor?

Are you asking rhetorically, or do you really not know? Free trade agreements benefit exporters, not importers. By enacting tariffs, you help prevent foreign providers from undercutting domestic businesses, since foreigners can very often churn out products at lower costs (leading people to naturally pick the cheaper option, and why wouldn't they?).

Since tariffs are designed to protect domestic businesses from those issues, when you remove tariffs (which is EXACTLY what free trade agreements do), you may save a few bucks on an item at the store, but you give all the actual job creation and economic overhead to the foreign countries you're buying from, and neglect that economic growth from your own domestic companies. That's why our free trade agreements are "piss poor." Granted there is a balance to it (and I'm not saying we should go all Smoot-Hawley on their asses), but tariffs are a proven concept that have been around for centuries.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that a college-educated person like yourself already knows this. It's sad that I have to explain what we all read in our 6th grade Social Studies books.

Your implicit assumption is that it's best if everything that's sold in our country is also made in our country, but that's not necessarily the case. Tariffs on steel imports may help American companies producing steel, but they hurt the much larger set of companies which use that steel, and ultimately the consumers of those products.

They're called trade agreements for a reason, because money is exchanged for goods. The value of those goods does not go away as soon as the money changes hands. The goods that are purchased from other countries have inherent value and can subsequently be further refined or sold for profit, benefiting the American companies and citizens who purchased those goods.

To claim that purchasing something from another country is inherently weakening your own economy is shortsighted, and the real world is obviously more complicated than that.
---

lmao at anyone dissing free trade

Europe was a filthy farthole after WWII, then of all countries, France and Germany began exploring free trade

wow guess what Europe thrived

Anyone supporting Trump's policies, or policies of current Hugarian or Italian leaders clearly hasn't read a lot of history.
---

GanglyKhan posted...

I'm not dead and I still have a job, so yeah, I'm content.

pleb wordview
---

Magus 10 posted...

shipwreckers posted...

Magus 10 posted...

In what way are our trade agreements piss-poor?

Are you asking rhetorically, or do you really not know? Free trade agreements benefit exporters, not importers. By enacting tariffs, you help prevent foreign providers from undercutting domestic businesses, since foreigners can very often churn out products at lower costs (leading people to naturally pick the cheaper option, and why wouldn't they?).

Since tariffs are designed to protect domestic businesses from those issues, when you remove tariffs (which is EXACTLY what free trade agreements do), you may save a few bucks on an item at the store, but you give all the actual job creation and economic overhead to the foreign countries you're buying from, and neglect that economic growth from your own domestic companies. That's why our free trade agreements are "piss poor." Granted there is a balance to it (and I'm not saying we should go all Smoot-Hawley on their asses), but tariffs are a proven concept that have been around for centuries.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that a college-educated person like yourself already knows this. It's sad that I have to explain what we all read in our 6th grade Social Studies books.

Your implicit assumption is that it's best if everything that's sold in our country is also made in our country, but that's not necessarily the case. Tariffs on steel imports may help American companies producing steel, but they hurt the much larger set of companies which use that steel, and ultimately the consumers of those products.

They're called trade agreements for a reason, because money is exchanged for goods. The value of those goods does not go away as soon as the money changes hands. The goods that are purchased from other countries have inherent value and can subsequently be further refined or sold for profit, benefiting the American companies and citizens who purchased those goods.

To claim that purchasing something from another country is inherently weakening your own economy is shortsighted, and the real world is obviously more complicated than that.

You don't think that the US is a bit too import-heavy? I mean, statistically, it's well known that we import far more than we export, so that's not what I'm asking. I'm saying don't you agree that we've taken import reliance a bit too far???

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not saying gung-ho tariffs are helpful. There's a balance to it. Also, i'm not trying to oversimplify anything here. If anything, free trade oversimplifies things, since it's just a blanket-sweep removal on restrictions / deterrents to foreign reliance.

Also, free trade is a relatively new methodology overall (at least NAFTA, for example). It can be "too much of a good thing," if you will. Heck, NAFTA didn't even exist until the Clinton administration. People speak as if it's been around for ages. It's still a work-in-progress, and asking for re-balance isn't as absurd as people make it out to be.

The sad part is, whether by tariffs, or by free trade, both approaches can be boiled down to outright assumptions (that 1) the lower costs from free trade will increase economic growth by giving people more cash, or 2) that that tariffs will restore domestic purchasing and business which also results in more cash). Either approach gets us more cash, at least on paper.

I dunno man. It'd be nice if there was an end-all, be-all answer, but like you said, there's complexities here. I'm just sick of people dismissing all contrary views as absurd (especially when they involve proven concepts have been around for literally centuries).
---

Magus 10 posted...

shipwreckers posted...

Magus 10 posted...

In what way are our trade agreements piss-poor?

Are you asking rhetorically, or do you really not know? Free trade agreements benefit exporters, not importers. By enacting tariffs, you help prevent foreign providers from undercutting domestic businesses, since foreigners can very often churn out products at lower costs (leading people to naturally pick the cheaper option, and why wouldn't they?).

Since tariffs are designed to protect domestic businesses from those issues, when you remove tariffs (which is EXACTLY what free trade agreements do), you may save a few bucks on an item at the store, but you give all the actual job creation and economic overhead to the foreign countries you're buying from, and neglect that economic growth from your own domestic companies. That's why our free trade agreements are "piss poor." Granted there is a balance to it (and I'm not saying we should go all Smoot-Hawley on their asses), but tariffs are a proven concept that have been around for centuries.

But I have a sneaking suspicion that a college-educated person like yourself already knows this. It's sad that I have to explain what we all read in our 6th grade Social Studies books.

Your implicit assumption is that it's best if everything that's sold in our country is also made in our country, but that's not necessarily the case. Tariffs on steel imports may help American companies producing steel, but they hurt the much larger set of companies which use that steel, and ultimately the consumers of those products.

They're called trade agreements for a reason, because money is exchanged for goods. The value of those goods does not go away as soon as the money changes hands. The goods that are purchased from other countries have inherent value and can subsequently be further refined or sold for profit, benefiting the American companies and citizens who purchased those goods.

To claim that purchasing something from another country is inherently weakening your own economy is shortsighted, and the real world is obviously more complicated than that.

True. It is very hard for American companies to compete against a country willing to work 9 year olds in sweat shops for next to nothing. Best to keep letting the billionaires exploit this so they can keep stamping on Americans trying to start their own businesses and keep the poor poor and the rich rich

OhhhJa posted...

True. It is very hard for American companies to compete against a country willing to work 9 year olds in sweat shops for next to nothing. Best to keep letting the billionaires exploit this so they can keep stamping on Americans trying to start their own businesses and keep the poor poor and the rich rich

Perhaps not to that extreme, but yeah, there's a REASON they can pump out goods so damn cheap. Americans assume all foreign suppliers are under our same code of business ethics (as if they all abide by our same laws).

But that's a whole different discussion in its own right. I've been trying to address the conversation based on economic merits alone, but the ethics aspect is worth a mention.
---

zebatov posted...

Good intentions, poor execution.

Bad on both.
---