One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
In The End, the Trump Presidency Was a Failure on Its Own Terms
Page <prev 2 of 15 next> last>>
Jul 22, 2021 12:54:04   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Is David A. Hopkins one of the very few you trust?

Shame on you.

I know not enough of Mr. Hopkins to trust completely. But, I do agree with his assessment of Trump, thus...the shame is, as it should be, placed squarely in the lap of The Donald and his administration.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 12:58:44   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Hey general flunkie, call your A****a and B*M c****e thugs out for r**ting, burning, l**ting, raping and destroying everything they touched in the last 3 years just like you and the nanny Perloosli thugs that sit in congress and do nothing but support domestic i**********nists in their own party.

Given that I have repeatedly condemned violent r****rs of all kinds, your comment falls flat.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 13:53:26   #
FarOutWest
 
If Biden, either Clinton, or Barry O faced 1/1000th of the scrutiny Trump endured, all would be folding sheets for 85 cents an hour in a Federal penitentiary.

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2021 14:15:58   #
Big Kahuna
 
Carlos Caliente wrote:
Give Biden two impeachments and a f**e Russian conspiracy to deal with and see how well his Presidency fares.


Why not just give Bribem and his entire party the ax?

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 14:58:56   #
Truth be known
 
slatten49 wrote:
Mornin', intern. I see you're up & about from the netherworld of your existence. Wake up, as you have me confused with the misfits of your kind that attacked the nation's capitol on J****** 6th.


How can someone "ATTACK" without wrapons?

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 15:33:32   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
slatten49 wrote:
The most surprising political development of the 21st century was that Donald Trump became president of the United States. The least surprising development was that he turned out to be bad at the job.

Evaluating p**********l performance can be difficult. Some presidents' qualities only become clear long after they leave office, as previously unknown information comes to light and the revelations of history render their decisions more or less justified than they seemed at the time. Ideological predispositions inevitably color our views of political figures, who sometimes rise or fall in retrospective estimation as subsequent intellectual trends shift the grounds on which they are judged—like the renewed emphasis in recent years on the importance of civil rights that has bolstered the reputation of U. S. Grant among p**********l scholars while damaging that of Woodrow Wilson. And there is no consensus, even among experts, on what the responsibilities of the president are and what standards are appropriate to determine success in office.

Regardless of these challenges, the general verdict on Trump among historians and political scientists, reporters and commentators, and most of the Washington political community (including, at least privately, many Republicans) is guaranteed to range from disappointment and mockery to outright declarations that he was the worst president in American history. And there is little reason to expect that the information yet to emerge about the internal operations of the Trump administration will improve his reputation in the future. Instead, it's far more likely that there are stories still to be told about the events of the last four years that history will find just as damning as today's public knowledge.

Trump's defenders will respond that the scholars and journalists who claim the authority to write this history are fatally corrupted by hostile bias. It's certainly true that these are collectively left-leaning professions, and that the Trump presidency treated both of these groups as political opponents from its earliest days. So what if we tried for a moment to give Trump the benefit of the doubt by attempting to evaluate his presidency as much as possible on its own terms? Did Trump succeed in achieving what he wanted to do, even if it wasn't what others wanted him to do?

One approach to answering this question involves returning to the 2016 campaign and comparing the positions of Trump the candidate to the record of Trump the president. Trump did deliver on some of his promises once in office: he cut taxes and regulations, he strengthened barriers to immigration and travel from overseas, and he appointed a large number of conservatives to the federal judiciary. But his signature proposals were never enacted, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, the significant renegotiation of international trade agreements, a major federal infrastructure investment, and a wall spanning the nation's southern border funded by the Mexican government.

There was also a more general set of failures that didn't concern specific policies as much as a basic approach to the job. While a candidate in 2016, Trump presented himself as an energetic deal-maker who would fight harder than his predecessors in both parties for the interests of the American people. But he turned out to be much less invested in his official responsibilities than in spending his daily "executive time" watching cable television and his weekends playing golf; he was sufficiently self-conscious about this lack of work ethic to inelegantly deny it in public ("President Trump will work from early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls and have many meetings") but not to actually alter his behavior.

Trump's pre-e******n suggestions that he would attract an all-star team of executive personnel to join the government similarly stood in sharp contrast to the actual staff of his administration, which was by some distance the least qualified and talented group of subordinates assembled by any modern president of either party. (And many key positions were filled by acting appointees or were simply left vacant for months and even years.)

With Trump's evident lack of interest in substantive details, his instinct for combativeness (a universally-acknowledged personal quality which many of his supporters admired), and his apparent difficulties in grasping the motivations of others, the promised knack for deal-making never materialized either. Both major legislative achievements of his presidency—the 2017 tax cut bill and the two rounds of C***D relief in 2020—were, by all accounts, developed and enacted with minimal direct involvement by the president. When Trump did insert himself in legislative negotiations in late 2018 and early 2019 by demanding that Congress approve funding for his border wall, the result was a prolonged government shutdown and subsequent retreat after Senate Republicans abandoned their support for his position.

Of course, politicians occasionally have been known to make promises on the campaign trail that they do not expect to keep if elected. Maybe it's inaccurate to treat public commitments in the midst of a tough e*******l race as evidence of a president's true goals. So, based on the actions of the Trump administration once it began, what can we conclude about what it wanted to do and whether it succeeded in doing it?

The primary animating force of the Trump presidency, the juice that fueled the president and his subordinates every day, was the waging of a permanent political war against an array of perceived enemies. The Democratic Party was one such enemy—this was by far the most thoroughly partisan presidency in memory—but hardly the only one. The news media, career bureaucrats, intellectuals and educators, the entertainment industry, and any insufficiently supportive Republican were all dependable targets.

This war was unrelenting, but achieved few victories outside the bounds of the Republican Party (where Trump's influence and threats were most effective at punishing dissenters). Trump's critics spent the past four years feeling sad, angry, offended, and even fearful about the potential destruction of American democracy. But it's hard to make the case that their political or cultural power was weaker at the end of his presidency than it was at the beginning.

Trump succeeded in preventing Hillary Clinton from leading the country, but he wound up empowering Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer instead. He railed against liberal elites who predominate within social institutions like universities, media organizations, and technology companies, but his time in office only saw a continued progression of leftward cultural change in American society and a parallel departure of highly-educated v**ers from the Republican Party. The conservative intellectual project has not suffered as much damage in many decades as it did over the past four years; conservative thinkers and writers were internally divided into pro- and anti-Trump factions, were exposed as holding a limited ability to speak for the conservative mass public, and were deprived by Trump's behavior of a precious claim to moral superiority over the left. And the fact that the Trump administration is leaving office complaining of being "silenced" and "canceled" by a multi-platform social media ban imposed on its leader is evidence enough of its lack of success in gaining influence over the tech sector.

A final, inadvertently-acknowledged testimony to the failure of the Trump administration was its prevailing communication style. Both the outgoing president and his succession of spokespeople stood out for two distinctive traits: a lack of commitment to factual accuracy and a perpetually grouchy demeanor. The typical public statement from this White House was a misleading claim delivered with a sarcastic sneer. Of course, no member of the administration would admit on the record that the Trump presidency was anything less than a parade of unparalleled triumphs. But it doesn't make sense to lie so much unless the t***h isn't on your side, and there's no good reason to act so aggrieved all the time if you're really succeeding as much as you claim.

...David A. Hopkins
The most surprising political development of the 2... (show quote)


More verbose bullcrap! U lovin ur puppet?

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 15:34:18   #
Wonttakeitanymore
 
wtroxell wrote:
Trump: Greatest President Ever !!!!!!

MAGA MAGA MAGA


Amen! And even the zombies like slat know it!

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2021 16:16:54   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
Wonttakeitanymore wrote:
Amen! And even the zombies like slat know it!

Knowing me as well as I do, I have to disagree.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 16:22:57   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
T***h be known wrote:
How can someone "ATTACK" without wrapons?

How incredibly obtuse. Did you not watch on TV

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/

A review of the federal charges against the alleged r****rs shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and f**gpoles wielded as clubs.

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 17:29:22   #
Truth be known
 
slatten49 wrote:
How incredibly obtuse. Did you not watch on TV

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/

A review of the federal charges against the alleged r****rs shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and f**gpoles wielded as clubs.

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)




Propaganda, nothing but propaganda. Yes I saw the videos where the "protesters" we're invited into the Capitol.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 18:03:43   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
slatten49 wrote:
The most surprising political development of the 21st century was that Donald Trump became president of the United States. The least surprising development was that he turned out to be bad at the job.

Evaluating p**********l performance can be difficult. Some presidents' qualities only become clear long after they leave office, as previously unknown information comes to light and the revelations of history render their decisions more or less justified than they seemed at the time. Ideological predispositions inevitably color our views of political figures, who sometimes rise or fall in retrospective estimation as subsequent intellectual trends shift the grounds on which they are judged—like the renewed emphasis in recent years on the importance of civil rights that has bolstered the reputation of U. S. Grant among p**********l scholars while damaging that of Woodrow Wilson. And there is no consensus, even among experts, on what the responsibilities of the president are and what standards are appropriate to determine success in office.

Regardless of these challenges, the general verdict on Trump among historians and political scientists, reporters and commentators, and most of the Washington political community (including, at least privately, many Republicans) is guaranteed to range from disappointment and mockery to outright declarations that he was the worst president in American history. And there is little reason to expect that the information yet to emerge about the internal operations of the Trump administration will improve his reputation in the future. Instead, it's far more likely that there are stories still to be told about the events of the last four years that history will find just as damning as today's public knowledge.

Trump's defenders will respond that the scholars and journalists who claim the authority to write this history are fatally corrupted by hostile bias. It's certainly true that these are collectively left-leaning professions, and that the Trump presidency treated both of these groups as political opponents from its earliest days. So what if we tried for a moment to give Trump the benefit of the doubt by attempting to evaluate his presidency as much as possible on its own terms? Did Trump succeed in achieving what he wanted to do, even if it wasn't what others wanted him to do?

One approach to answering this question involves returning to the 2016 campaign and comparing the positions of Trump the candidate to the record of Trump the president. Trump did deliver on some of his promises once in office: he cut taxes and regulations, he strengthened barriers to immigration and travel from overseas, and he appointed a large number of conservatives to the federal judiciary. But his signature proposals were never enacted, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, the significant renegotiation of international trade agreements, a major federal infrastructure investment, and a wall spanning the nation's southern border funded by the Mexican government.

There was also a more general set of failures that didn't concern specific policies as much as a basic approach to the job. While a candidate in 2016, Trump presented himself as an energetic deal-maker who would fight harder than his predecessors in both parties for the interests of the American people. But he turned out to be much less invested in his official responsibilities than in spending his daily "executive time" watching cable television and his weekends playing golf; he was sufficiently self-conscious about this lack of work ethic to inelegantly deny it in public ("President Trump will work from early in the morning until late in the evening. He will make many calls and have many meetings") but not to actually alter his behavior.

Trump's pre-e******n suggestions that he would attract an all-star team of executive personnel to join the government similarly stood in sharp contrast to the actual staff of his administration, which was by some distance the least qualified and talented group of subordinates assembled by any modern president of either party. (And many key positions were filled by acting appointees or were simply left vacant for months and even years.)

With Trump's evident lack of interest in substantive details, his instinct for combativeness (a universally-acknowledged personal quality which many of his supporters admired), and his apparent difficulties in grasping the motivations of others, the promised knack for deal-making never materialized either. Both major legislative achievements of his presidency—the 2017 tax cut bill and the two rounds of C***D relief in 2020—were, by all accounts, developed and enacted with minimal direct involvement by the president. When Trump did insert himself in legislative negotiations in late 2018 and early 2019 by demanding that Congress approve funding for his border wall, the result was a prolonged government shutdown and subsequent retreat after Senate Republicans abandoned their support for his position.

Of course, politicians occasionally have been known to make promises on the campaign trail that they do not expect to keep if elected. Maybe it's inaccurate to treat public commitments in the midst of a tough e*******l race as evidence of a president's true goals. So, based on the actions of the Trump administration once it began, what can we conclude about what it wanted to do and whether it succeeded in doing it?

The primary animating force of the Trump presidency, the juice that fueled the president and his subordinates every day, was the waging of a permanent political war against an array of perceived enemies. The Democratic Party was one such enemy—this was by far the most thoroughly partisan presidency in memory—but hardly the only one. The news media, career bureaucrats, intellectuals and educators, the entertainment industry, and any insufficiently supportive Republican were all dependable targets.

This war was unrelenting, but achieved few victories outside the bounds of the Republican Party (where Trump's influence and threats were most effective at punishing dissenters). Trump's critics spent the past four years feeling sad, angry, offended, and even fearful about the potential destruction of American democracy. But it's hard to make the case that their political or cultural power was weaker at the end of his presidency than it was at the beginning.

Trump succeeded in preventing Hillary Clinton from leading the country, but he wound up empowering Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer instead. He railed against liberal elites who predominate within social institutions like universities, media organizations, and technology companies, but his time in office only saw a continued progression of leftward cultural change in American society and a parallel departure of highly-educated v**ers from the Republican Party. The conservative intellectual project has not suffered as much damage in many decades as it did over the past four years; conservative thinkers and writers were internally divided into pro- and anti-Trump factions, were exposed as holding a limited ability to speak for the conservative mass public, and were deprived by Trump's behavior of a precious claim to moral superiority over the left. And the fact that the Trump administration is leaving office complaining of being "silenced" and "canceled" by a multi-platform social media ban imposed on its leader is evidence enough of its lack of success in gaining influence over the tech sector.

A final, inadvertently-acknowledged testimony to the failure of the Trump administration was its prevailing communication style. Both the outgoing president and his succession of spokespeople stood out for two distinctive traits: a lack of commitment to factual accuracy and a perpetually grouchy demeanor. The typical public statement from this White House was a misleading claim delivered with a sarcastic sneer. Of course, no member of the administration would admit on the record that the Trump presidency was anything less than a parade of unparalleled triumphs. But it doesn't make sense to lie so much unless the t***h isn't on your side, and there's no good reason to act so aggrieved all the time if you're really succeeding as much as you claim.

...David A. Hopkins
The most surprising political development of the 2... (show quote)


"The most surprising political development of the 21st century was that Donald Trump became president of the United States. The least surprising development was that he turned out to be bad at the job." - slat

Your liberal opinion.

Reply
 
 
Jul 22, 2021 18:06:12   #
eagleye13 Loc: Fl
 
slatten49 wrote:
How incredibly obtuse. Did you not watch on TV

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/capitol-protesters-were-armed-with-variety-of-weapons/

A review of the federal charges against the alleged r****rs shows that they did come armed, and with a variety of weapons: stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and f**gpoles wielded as clubs.

Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails.
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)


"Before and after the storming of the Capitol, NBC News reported, police seized a dozen firearms, including an assault rifle, and thousands of rounds of ammunition from seven people attending the rally for President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C. Other weapons included a crossbow, a stun gun and 11 Molotov cocktails."

Really????
How come none were used?

Where was the burning and pillaging so common from the Left?

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 18:10:03   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
eagleye13 wrote:
"The most surprising political development of the 21st century was that Donald Trump became president of the United States. The least surprising development was that he turned out to be bad at the job." - slat

Your liberal opinion.

Always good to hear from ya', Eagle...confused as you often appear to be.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 19:01:12   #
Big Kahuna
 
slatten49 wrote:
Always good to hear from ya', Eagle...confused as you often appear to be.


Slatten, you are so confused that you don't even know that the word "fuse" is contained in "confused" and obviously your fuse always seems to be lit about everything Trump does or says. In fact here's a word that you should get familiar with that has fuse in it and it's "refuse". We refuse your bs that you toss daily and you have "no standing" on this site.

Reply
Jul 22, 2021 19:14:38   #
slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
 
drlarrygino wrote:
Slatten, you are so confused that you don't even know that the word "fuse" is contained in "confused" and obviously your fuse always seems to be lit about everything Trump does or says. In fact here's a word that you should get familiar with that has fuse in it and it's "refuse". We refuse your bs that you toss daily and you have "no standing" on this site.

Zealots such as you would have everybody be as blind as themselves. To you, to be clear-sighted is a flaw.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 15 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.