Is Donald Trump a Good President

Bimps · 2016-09-20 03:15:09

N1KF wrote:

Pingohits wrote:
peeps are talking about voting for trump because he's "the lesser of two evils"
besides plane trips to afghanistan, it's the least sensible thing to do
i simply cannot comprehend the why in this logic, i mean, voting for an expired carrot because he's less evil than a botox-injected gargoyle? what kind of nerk are you giving to me? are you disregarding third party candidates, because you do understand they're also a choice you can pick?
one may argue third party candidates have no chance or do not "belong", but if you would much rather spend your days with a carrot as president then feel free to vote for him, not like he's going to do anything bad
??
I would also like to add that it's very unlikely a single vote will decide an entire election.

wrong

Bobithan · 2016-09-20 03:54:36

Alright

Kaleb123 wrote:

Unlike a lot of people in this section, I beleve electing Trump will be far from a disaster, and indeed is the second best possible choice USA can make

If your ranking of possible presidents is
#1 Bernie Sanders
#2 Donald Trump
#3 Everybody else

You have absolutely no integrity in your political ideas. You view things only on the surface, you don't care about policy at all. The two could not be any more opposite in their ideas for the country. For pretty much everything Sanders campaigned for, Trump pushes for the opposite.

In terms of his public speeches and rhetoric, people need to remember that all politicians have a mask and every person who wants to make any rational decision needs to look who is behind the mask.
However, unlike most politicians, Trump's public mask does not obscure his real face, but it deliberately and loudly accentuates it to get into the public eye.
Trump is well known for being in the reality show business - and his bravado and far-fetched rhetoric reflects that. Well, too be elected, you have to be noticed first, and Trump does everything to attract the media spotlights. His loud campaign strategy is ridiculously successful.

I don't see how this is in any way a good thing to see in a candidate. Just because he's shameless about his incompetence, that excuses him from it? How does that make any sense?

And to those saying Trump will cause destruction of the USA, they have to keep in mind that ANY PRESIDENT NEEDS CONGRESS TO PASS LEGISLATION.

So you're saying that in spite of Trump having godawful policy proposals, it's okay because Congress won't allow him? Why don't we elect somebody with sane policy in the first place? Wouldn't that be better?

And Congress definitely doesn't like Trump. Congress is after all a key part of the estabilishment, and a significant majority of elite republicans and democrats consider Trump to be decidedly anti-estabilishment. The Congress won't place passing any of Trump's far-fetched laws high on their priority list, and won't even discuss any outright frivolous.

Also, on Trump being anti-establishment: Why does anybody think this about Trump? The GOP is largely championing him as the One True Savior Of Mankind. He's a self proclaimed billionaire with big business ties and desires. He is the establishment, except with stupid views. And with GOP having his back, a GOP controlled congress would pass most of his bill ideas.

If Trump decides to deport every single Mexican out of the US, well, he can't. Unless he can find and persuade enough high-ranking politicians, he is completely harmless. And high-ranking politicians definitely don't want that - most of them primarily want things they have been paid to want - paid by the american nobility - the super-rich 1%.

...Trump is the super-rich 1%. He is not an outsider.

Most iconic trait of Donald Trump is definitely his shameless egoism. He doesn't try to hide it, he even amplifies it.
The point is we can see the person behind the mask.

And guess what? The person behind the mask is the mask. There is no other Donald.

Along with Bernie Sanders, Trump is the only candidate based primarily on principles, the only candidate that is in any sense "real". The rest are not, their political positions are largely formed by their parties, sponsors and public polls.

I mean, let's just ignore the NRA's monetary influence on Trump. That one doesn't count, right guys? ... cough

Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton are the living examples of this. They are faceless, pre-made, manufactured, puppets, faux, fugazi, whatever you call it, they are very easily influenced and place the principles and desires of their wealthy sponsors above any political positions and beliefs they themselves hold. These sponsors are mostly corporations much richer than Trump, mind you.

mhm. Have you looked into Clinton's policies at all? She's pushing for campaign finance reform, Wall Street reform, improving jobs and wages, evening the playing field between the 1% and everybody else, just to name a few things.

The driving principle behind Trump is not to get more money and gifts - he has far more money than all previous presidents put together. He is motivated by the desire to be the "alpha male", and the thirst for fame and greatness. Trump wants to rise above all others, he doesn't want to obey anyone above him. He doesn't want to needlessly sacrifice his power if the benefits don't outweigh the costs, and in Trump's case they almost never do. He wants to be the leader, and he always wants to have the upper hand.

How is a raw desire for power a quality we want in a president? We want somebody who will perform their civil service from the good of their heart, not out of some insane power fantasy.

Compatibility with and acceptance by the existing government is however of utmost importance when you want to push your agenda through. Any government or a country is after all just a system of rules that regulate cooperation of a group of people.

Honestly don't even know what you're trying to say here. Looks like filler trying to make yourself look smart.

Trump definitely exhibits an uncanny similarity to Vladimir Putin when it comes to his motives, however he doesn't pose any real danger to the US. For the last 300 years, Russia has a tradition of absolutism, and Putin is a continuation of that. USA, however, has been an aristocracy - not ruled by a single powerful figure, but thousands of elites sharing the majority of political power (however, there has been a short era of democratic socialism from the 1940s until the 1990s, caused by the WWII and the subsequent rivalry of superpowers). The US aristocratic estabilishment is currently deeply rooted in the system, and they don't want to just give and won't just give their power to Trump.

I can't even begin on how wrong you are about the history between Russia and the United States and the rest of the world. What is Crimea?

In a nutshell, US estabilishment is not insane, anything proposed by Trump deemed too ridiculous will be dissmissed immediately, and Trump will definitely not be able to accomplish most of his far-right ideas. However, I believe that no matter what Trump does, he will bring a lasting positive change. In this way his presidency might very well end up being very similar to one of Bernie Sanders, who I consider to be the best choice for the US presidency.

You say these words but I'm not sure if you understand what they mean, or if they mean anything at all. I don't even know why I'm bothering replying to somebody with so little understanding of US politics that they think that Donald Trump is second only to Bernie Sanders.

Unlike the last few previous president, Trump is not compatible with the system in an unprecedented way, and will prevent the government estabilishment from furthering its own power for at least one term. This would be a major blow to the power of corporations and would shape USA for the subsequent decades. Second term would only cement the shift in the political paradigm.

I'd like to accentuate my curiosity here as to why on earth you think that Donald Trump of all people is anti establishment. Is it because he says outrageous things? Because he has money? That can't be it though, the establishment is where the money is... hm...

However, by voting for Hillary, Rubio, Kasich or any other candate created by the estabilishment, we also vote for the sponsors, giving them more power. The same sponsors that boomed and flourished throughout the 2000s, and caused far greater mayhem than Donald Trump could ever dream of causing.

What mayhem are we talking about here? I really don't think you even know what you're talking about when it comes to special interests. The cure to lobbying is not electing a madman.

If you want your children to live in a better America, there are two choices. Either vote Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, and your vote will make a real, positive difference.

This has to be a parody.

The real choice is not between Republicans and Democrats, the real choice is between keeping or stopping the status quo. Trump and Bernie seem like two completely different and opposite candidates, but they are just the same side of one coin. Either one can cause change and revival of American prosperity, and their differences fade when we compare them to what they have in common.

The only similarity you've brought up between them is that both of them would bring more change than other candidates probably would. I guess I might be able to agree with that, but is that REALLY all there is to a president?

When you ask people about the most prosperous era in the US history, the majority will tell you it was the 1950s and 1960s, when the USA rapidly arose as the world economic leader after the WWII (while the rest of the world was still focused on rebuilding their devastated economies to the pre-war levels)
This was the era USA was unquestionably at its greatest...

Yes, what is Jim Crow?

...however few people remember it was also an era of widespread socialism. When we look at their economic policies, Eisenhower and Kennedy were unquestionably more socialist than Bernie Sanders currently is.

No, this is actually a very questionable statement. Why on earth do you believe this to be true? Where are you getting these ideas from?

Jesus Christ I really hope you aren't old enough to vote.

Also why did I even spend time writing this out. oh well I guess I'll go ahead and embarrass you and myself by posting

Ratburntro44, Pingohits

Pirate · 2016-09-20 04:33:58

Pingohits wrote:

peeps are talking about voting for trump because he's "the lesser of two evils"
besides plane trips to afghanistan, it's the least sensible thing to do
i simply cannot comprehend the why in this logic, i mean, voting for an expired carrot because he's less evil than a botox-injected gargoyle? what kind of nerk are you giving to me? are you disregarding third party candidates, because you do understand they're also a choice you can pick?
one may argue third party candidates have no chance or do not "belong", but if you would much rather spend your days with a carrot as president then feel free to vote for him, not like he's going to do anything bad
??

the chances of third party candidates winning due to the flaws of first past the post and such are rather slim though, usually voting for third party hurts the candidate with the most similar ideas to that third party, making the candidate you like the least more likely to win

N1KF · 2016-09-20 04:44:14

Bimps wrote:

N1KF wrote:
I would also like to add that it's very unlikely a single vote will decide an entire election.
wrong

Can you show many any cases where a single vote decides a presidential election?

Different55 · 2016-09-20 05:34:23

N1KF wrote:

Bimps wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I would also like to add that it's very unlikely a single vote will decide an entire election.
wrong
Can you show many any cases where a single vote decides a presidential election?

Millions of single votes decide elections. If everyone votes X instead of Y because "Oh what's the point, everyone else will vote for X anyway" then X will win even if he was everyone's second choice.

N1KF · 2016-09-20 05:36:13

Different55 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
Bimps wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I would also like to add that it's very unlikely a single vote will decide an entire election.
wrong
Can you show many any cases where a single vote decides a presidential election?
Millions of single votes decide elections. If everyone votes X instead of Y because "Oh what's the point, everyone else will vote for X anyway" then X will win even if he was everyone's second choice.

Every person has a single vote. If you manage to convince a large number of people, that may actually affect an election, but a single person's thoughts won't affect anything. You aren't millions of people.

Emma333

Different55 · 2016-09-20 12:49:54

N1KF wrote:

Different55 wrote:
N1KF wrote:
Bimps wrote:
N1KF wrote:
I would also like to add that it's very unlikely a single vote will decide an entire election.
wrong
Can you show many any cases where a single vote decides a presidential election?
Millions of single votes decide elections. If everyone votes X instead of Y because "Oh what's the point, everyone else will vote for X anyway" then X will win even if he was everyone's second choice.
Every person has a single vote. If you manage to convince a large number of people, that may actually affect an election, but a single person's thoughts won't affect anything. You aren't millions of people.

You're never just influencing a single person though. The attitude of "I'm just one person, I can't do crap" is a terrible one to have. Like I said, if everyone had that opinion and went with their second choice they'd be screwing themselves over. Don't vote a certain way just because you're a single vote or you're screwing yourself over.

Bobithan

Emma333 · 2016-09-20 14:00:07

Different55 wrote:

N1KF wrote:
Different55 wrote:
N1KF wrote:
Bimps wrote:
wrong
Can you show many any cases where a single vote decides a presidential election?
Millions of single votes decide elections. If everyone votes X instead of Y because "Oh what's the point, everyone else will vote for X anyway" then X will win even if he was everyone's second choice.
Every person has a single vote. If you manage to convince a large number of people, that may actually affect an election, but a single person's thoughts won't affect anything. You aren't millions of people.
You're never just influencing a single person though. The attitude of "I'm just one person, I can't do crap" is a terrible one to have. Like I said, if everyone had that opinion and went with their second choice they'd be screwing themselves over. Don't vote a certain way just because you're a single vote or you're screwing yourself over.

You can never influence what everyone has as oppinion. I think it's a very strong argument against the people that don't want Trump so vote Hillary and the opposite, your vote does not influence other votes so it doesn't matter what you vote for. So it's best to vote for the candidate you agree the most with, even if it's a third party candidate.

I'm not good with words

N1KF

Onjit · 2016-09-20 15:19:33

Oh the joys of First Past the Post voting :')

N1KF, Bobithan

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2016-09-20 03:15:09

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#27 2016-09-20 03:54:36

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#28 2016-09-20 04:33:58

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#29 2016-09-20 04:44:14

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#30 2016-09-20 05:34:23

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#31 2016-09-20 05:36:13

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#32 2016-09-20 12:49:54

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#33 2016-09-20 14:00:07

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

#34 2016-09-20 15:19:33

Re: Is Donald Trump a Good President

Board footer