What is the truth behind Donald Trump?

Sugar_Rush

https://youtu.be/qiTPXaBI93Y?t=88

He's claiming he was the savior of NATO.

And that if he was in power now the Ukraine invasion would have never happened.

I'm not informed on the particulars of these claims but there is contention that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict did in fact (or was allowed to) escalate when Biden replaced him.

Is Trump just blowing hot air with these claims?

growleaves

If he had ran on a Democratic ticket with the same policies and a slight alteration of rhetoric most boardsies/Irish people would be defending him.

sameoldname

If Trump is saying something, it is only to make himself look better, truth be damned. There are no exceptions.

Granted, to most people that are not him, everything he says makes him look more and more like a moron but that's by the by.

goldenmick

I suggest you read the book: "Fire And Fury".

It will open your eyes to the real Donald Trump... a sleazeball, misogynistic, manipulative, lying, tax evading, thick skinned, dense muppet.

I don't know who says he would have prevented war. He would in fact have created them.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058241752/what-is-the-truth-behind-donald-trump

Trump pulled down the troops number in NATO and threatened to pull out completely and was a Putin lapdog that Putin had wrapped around his finger. If he'd been in charge Ukraine would have received no support form USA and Trump would have called Putin to say what a big alpha man Putin was and congratulate him on his land expansion while proposing do to the same to Mexico. In fact he's already done so and on record in regards to his support for Russia.

Within weeks, Trump praised Putin for how he handled the takeover of Crimea and predicted that "the rest of Ukraine will fall ... fairly quickly." Echoing Kremlin propaganda, Trump said in a TV interview that the Crimean people "would rather be with Russia," a position he also pushed in private. One of his 2016 campaign aides falsely claimed that "Russia did not seize Crimea."

When Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine shot down a commercial airliner in 2014, killing 298 people, Trump sowed doubt about Russia's involvement. He embraced Putin's denials, even after US and European officials publicly concluded that Russia was complicit.

In 2019, Trump infamously withheld nearly $400 million in military aid as part of his attempt to pressure Zelensky into announcing sham corruption investigations into Biden and his family's business dealings. The weapons in the stalled aid package included the Javelin missiles that have emerged as a crucial part of Ukraine's surprisingly robust defenses against Russian tanks

Trump ensured an increase in the occupation of Palestinian land by kowtowing to the extreme right of Israeli parties and ensured the conflict got worse.

Trump before he was even inaugurated announced that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would be in charge of crafting a peace deal. “I figured, look, you know the expression, ‘What do you have to lose?'” Trump told Ravid of the decision. Trump in Jan. 2020 revealed a plan for peace with Netanyahu by his side, but Palestinians rejected it at the outset and were not part of the negotiations.

Trump told Ravid that when he met him earlier in his presidency, he thought Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas seemed more amenable to making a deal than Netanyahu. “I thought he was terrific,” Trump told Ravid, adding that Abbas “was almost like a father,” that he “couldn’t have been nicer,” and that Trump thought “he wanted to make a deal more than Netanyahu.” Abbas ended Palestine’s relationship with the Trump administration, except on issues of security, after Trump moved the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Dec. 2017, recognizing Jerusalem as the country’s capital.

It's a safe bet to do a 180 on anything Trump says to come close to the truth as a starting point for research.

Sugar_Rush

In that video segment he does claim to have increased NATO input however, of course many countries only actually increased their NATO GDP allocation when Ukraine was invaded.

Correct?

So, his claim he identified low NATO contribution from other member states and initiated procurement of their financial involvement in NATO......... that's just a straight up fairy tale?

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118928025#Comment_118928025

Yup, Trump is very much a revisionist who will claim he never said something even if it's recorded and on video and everything good is because of him somehow even if he was never involved in any way, shape or form. If the weather was hotter in a given day in May you can be sure Trump would claim it was because of him and his policies basically.

Sugar_Rush

Jebus.

It's like politics is one big troll-job.

Manach

Trump's policy, embracing nationalism and a pro-quid-pro approach to diplomatic engagements marked both a significant and improved change in US Foreign policy. This seems to have been the premise of books such as "After Obama" by R. Singh. It is unfortunate that the Media lens through which much of Irish public opion has been shaped has been distorted by its reflexive anti-Trump narrative rhetoric.

Sugar_Rush

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118928328#Comment_118928328

The clip in the OP is from a US news source?

Brussels Sprout

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118927855#Comment_118927855

That's nonsense. Most of the policies that he ran on in 2016 (he didn't have any policies or platform in 2020) were unpopular in this country, specifically:

• Taking the USA out of the Paris Climate Accord
• Pulling the USA out of the Iran Nuclear deal
• Building the Wall
• Ending ObamaCare (a domestic issue but taking health care away from poor people doesn't sit right with people here)
• America First (people were concerned this might have an adverse affect on Multi-Nationals over here)
• Supportive of Brexit

The only policy of his that I can think of that people over here would have agreed with at the time was his pledge to be non-interventionist on foreign policy.

OP, don't believe a word that Trump says about anything. He'll twist everything to make it either, a positive about himself, or a slander on his political enemies. He is not a reliable narrator.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118930037#Comment_118930037

It isn't nonsense.

"Building the wall" could be a left-populist policy as long as it was framed in a different way (protecting workers from big-business exploitation as being part of it).

No one has any strong feelings about nuclear deals or know exactly what effect they'll have imo, they just go along with the party line.

Yes I was concerned that Pfizer and other companies would leave too but commentators pointed out an exodus wouldn't happen and in fact it didn't. As long as this mode of American protectionism doesn't hurt us we have no reason to oppose it. It is also perfectly compatible with Irish conceptions of liberalism and leftism - James Connolly was a protectionist, so was Napper Tandy. It would be conceptualised differently from "America First" (borrowed from Charles Lindbergh?) obviously.

Jeremy Corbyn and other Old Left people were vaguely supportive of Brexit too. When someone we like (ie Old Labour people) support such a policy we tend to be forgiving of that person.

I agree re ObamaCare and the Paris Climate Accords but more generally were Irish people upset when Bill Clinton spearheaded economically liberal policies? Democratic Presidents are also adept at dodging "climate" commitments. The Paris Accords date from 2015.

Sugar_Rush

I guess probably thee primary issue at the heart of this conflict, was probably well known amongst leaders long ago but Trump was at least outspoken as to it being a crucial strategic error.

That of course being Europe establishing infrastructure to increase dependence on Russian fuel/energy resources, gas-pipeline etc.

https://youtu.be/Vpwkdmwui3k

$hifty

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118931576#Comment_118931576

Nah, he's right.

You said if he ran on the same policies he'd have been supported by the libs. When challenged, your immediate response is "it could have gone over with the left if he completely changed the reasoning behind it"........i.e. a completely different policy for completely different reasons.

Also, in what world would "let's build a wall along the border" be coherently framed as "protecting workers from big-business exploitation"?

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118992742#Comment_118992742

Reasoning and rhetoric can change while policy stays the same.

Is that a serious question?

Cesar Chavez opposed immigration on the grounds of labour protectionism. James Connolly opposed immigration on the grounds of labour protectionism.

Left-wing thinkers like Noam Chomsky have written about how big business uses labour migration to lower average wages, and exploit incoming illegal immigrants.

There is a universe of left-wing perspectives on immigration which differ from the present-day policy of the American Democratic party.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118931576#Comment_118931576

It is nonsense. The difference between Trumpism and the previous iteration of hateful racism and xenophobia is that Trump lacked the capacity to try and dress anything up thus lending himself a perception of credibility in the eyes of his fan base.

Building the wall is and always was a demagogic device designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The US already has strict immigration policies. The Democrats are on par with a standard European right wing party such as the UK's Conservative party or the CDU in Germany.

When you see Irish people on an Irish site champion a foreigner threatening economic harm to their own country, you do have to wonder why they've adopted the baleful nonsense of someone with a long history of grifting such as Donald Trump. The whole point of protectionism is to harm other nations while enhancing your own. If Pfizer, Wyeth, Abbott and others don't leave Ireland then the policy has failed. The fact that you have to cite a man like James Connolly who was executed over 30 years before the second world war or Napper Tandy who died in the early nineteenth century is just bizarre. Do you think economic, trade and geopolitical dynamics are so similar that we should be bound by such figures, one from before the second world war and the other from before the fall of Napoleon?

It's funny that Jeremy Corbyn is being trotted out when he get slated regularly across the site in every other possible context. Brexit has proven to be beyond stupid so it's no surprise to see Trump supporting it.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118993774#Comment_118993774

Donald Trump was simply saying the things that a large percentage of the US population were privately saying, hence his overwhelming majority.

Politically incorrect things perhaps, but his success was speaking the language of ordinary people and not dressing matters up.

Hindsight now tells us that Donald Trump was right about many things. In fact, a recent poll on Trump v Biden in 2024 showed stark results that do not resonate with the picture you have painted in your post.

According to those taking part in the survey, 44 percent said they would vote for Trump in 2024, and 42 percent said they would back Biden if they were the two candidates.

The poll also shows that Biden's approval rating remains low at 38 percent, down from 42 percent in an April survey.

The Emerson College poll reveals Biden's job approval is lowest among white voters at 33 percent, and highest among Black voters at 61 percent.

So there appears to be quite a lot of buyer's remorse going around with Biden, and now it seems lukewarm Trump voters are coming back to supporting his direction of politics.

myfreespirit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118931576#Comment_118931576

"It isn't nonsense."

Everything you post tends towards nonsense, more or less.

In my opinion.

Nody

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157292#Comment_119157292

Trump never had a majority of the votes in either election; he lost both times so by your own definition that must mean that a majority disagreed with what Trump was saying and did not say it in private.

Secondly Trump offered easy "solutions" which in reality were not actually solutions and he increased the budget deficit by the highest percentage ever seen in American history since 1945 by borrowing more money. Let's look at his 2016 campaign promises (since he failed in 2020).

• Build the wall and have Mexico pay for it - Failed - The wall was not built, the section that were added cost more per meter compared to previous wall and the parts built fell partially down in the first storm and the rest is currently failing. Hence even if Trump would magically have gotten to build his wall it would have already fallen apart and be an appropriate monument to Trump; a big waste of money.
• ‘Repeal and replace’ Obamacare - Failed - Trump did not have any iadeas of what to do nor anyone who could come up with something else. In the end another big Trump failure.
• Taxes - Succeeded sort of. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December 2017. The signature piece of legislation on Trump’s watch, it did lower the corporate tax rate to 21 percent and Americans across the income scale saw their taxes cut. But wealthier households – those in the 95-99th percentiles of income – got a way bigger break according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center. The tax cuts produced by the TCJA are set to expire in 2025. Let's be generous and say a pass, the average American got a couple of hundred while the ultra rich got millions along with corporations, remember that deficit? Yea, here's a driver for it by borrowing to do tax cuts and those cuts expire in 2025 (but I'm sure the corporations etc. will ensure theirs remain while the average American gets an increase).
• Muslim ban - Failed - the claim was to restrict "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on”. He later amended his statement to say that the ban would affect Muslims “from any nation that has been compromised by terrorism”. Saudi Arabia anyone? Oh, never banned because of course not.
• Creating jobs - Failed - Trump pledged to “create a total of 25 million new jobs” and achieve a growth rate of 3.5 percent over the next 10 years. He boasted he would be the “greatest jobs president that God ever created”. Trump, as usual, failed to deliver on anything in relation to jobs. Even before Corona struck he was well behind target delivering same level as Obama. When he left the office he ended up with the record of the worst president in history by highest job losses on his watch.

In summary, Trump failed to deliver on all but one promise and that promise was a temporary promise that costs over a billion dollar a year in additional borrowing (and that's net after the increased spend is taken into account). What a successful guy, failed to deliver anything with all houses being Republican controlled and only achieved the level of Obama in growth who had the houses against him.

growleaves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157447#Comment_119157447

You cheeky little bollocks

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157753#Comment_119157753

I disagree with your interpretation of his policies, and definitely the selective nature of the way you've characterised his presidency. But leaving that to one side.

Let's not forget that, whilst Trump didn't secure the popular vote in either election, the number of voters who opted for Trump increased from 62,984,828 in 2016 to 74,216,154 in 2020.

That's a colossal increase, and that's with the electorate having full knowledge of 4-years of what you interpret as "failures".

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157788#Comment_119157788

"But leaving that to one side" = "I don't have a reasonable argument to counter the points you made"

As for the increase in votes he got between 2016 and 2020, you're being extremely selective in not acknowledging more people voted as a whole in 2020 largely due to the availability of postal votes, and that the Dem vote increased by an even greater amount. Trump increased his vote by about 12m, the Dems by over 15m.

And considering your point about how the number of people voting for Trump increased despite the "failures" and drop in approval rate he had throughout his Presidency, how can you then use Biden's drop in approval rate as any kind of real sign of anything?

As is usually the case with approval ratings, barring events of huge significance most US Presidents approval ratings drop for most of their terms. Some sharply, some fairly static and then the occasional bump/drop. But if you're using Biden's approval rating as a signifier that people are heading back towards Trump, that's just nonsense.

spurious

His administration's family separation policy alone should see him enter the halls of ignominy.

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119157831#Comment_119157831

You should always value the deterrent quality of certain policies.

For instance, estimates are that - since 1994 - 10,000 people have died trying to illegally cross the Mexican border into the United States. That's an enormous number of deaths. 650 alone died in 2021, but the actual numbers may be far worse than that.

If policies can be exacted by the United States to deter families from arriving at the border, this can end up reducing illegal migrant deaths - and that can only be a good thing.