Is there anything to be said for the GOP/Trump?

looksee · 10-01-2021 2:25pm #1

Just to throw in a devil's advocate question -

Trump is the president, with the authority that confers
There is a Republican majority in the Senate
Just about half of voting Americans voted for the GOP/Trump

There really does seem to be an argument for civil war/uprising if the above are accepted at face value.

Those of us on the other side of the argument can see it as entirely reasonable and urgently necessary that Trump should be taken down and the GOP restructured - but how reasonable is that? Yes, treatment of the Black and minority groups is completely wrong, yes a lot of stuff like gun control or lack of it is sickening, yes the lack of health provisions for poorer people is wrong, but those are opinions from this side of the divide. Given the first three points, what is the argument for supporting opposition to them?

I know there are gaping holes in this argument, not least the lack of proof of any issues with the election, but I am interested to try and just break the echo chamber a bit and see if there are arguments beyond just opinion. Essentially they are basically arguments for white supremacy and devil take the hindmost, so its not easy to argue anything positive. Generally the people who raise these points do it incoherently and unconvincingly, is that because they personally are politically/socially illiterate, or are there really any arguments for the current GOP/Trumpism?

ancapailldorcha · 10-01-2021 2:58pm

I hate to be pedantic but there is no more Republican majority in the Senate. The Democrats won both runoffs there.

So, the question is how you can justify conservative positions on firearms, race-relations and healthcare.

I think that healthcare is probably the simplest one to answer. Steve Schmidt who appeared on The Bunker podcast cited the example of renewing one's driving licence. Nobody likes having to deal with local government so his logic was why extend that to healthcare? The US seems to be a highly individualistic society, much more so than the UK or indeed anywhere else. Any sort of socialism is only permitted when deemed absolutely necessary such as defence, policing and some emergency services like firefighting. Any sort of change would be fought tooth and nail by healthcare corporations, insurance companies and the like. This necessitates a high degree of political will and many Americans seem to view healthcare and health insurance as something the individual should pay for. You'd need to change that attitude and such change takes a lot of time short of some form of disaster making the system in its current form untenable.

Firearms are basically here to stay as I think many Americans either see it as a personal liberty afforded under constitution via the second amendment. Nobody likes the thought of losing rights and there isn't a pro-gun control lobby that's as successful or as powerful as it's conservative counterpart. I think a lot of states with high proportions of gunowners would see a lot of them acting responsibly and they'd feel, not without reason that they're being punished for the actions of terrorists and others who use firearms to commit crimes.

Race relations is by far the most complex and difficult issue. It's quite common among states which historically afforded high levels of freedom to their citizens to have problems here. Talking specifically about the US, this has been an issue since the inception of the state. The civil war never resolved the issue and it's easily the main problem I have with modern US conservatism. In the UK, the Tories are smart enough to evolve, to cede ground where it has no value and to incorporate talent when it offers itself from different ethnic groups. This has been festering for decades all conservatives have tried to do is to entrench their own privilege instead of at least trying to find some form of compromise so I don't really think there's anything to be said for them on this last point.

I get that firearms are cultural and probably healthcare is as well but even here in the UK, the Daily Mail was livid at the Windrush scandal. Sadly, I think it's going to take another civil rights movement and/or a catastrophe or some kind to advance America's cultural problem with race.

looksee · 10-01-2021 3:13pm

Well, yes, technically there is no longer a Republican majority, but it has not really taken effect yet. There is a sea change coming, hopefully, which is why I feel it is interesting to see if there was any justification for the previous situation, which could easily re-emerge in 4 or 8 years time.

Interestingly you have made some valid and accurate points about the three aspects of Republicanism I raised, but no argument as to whether their attitudes have any validity. For good reason. I can't come up with any either, but would be interested in hearing from anyone who can, even as a devil's advocate response.

ancapailldorcha · 10-01-2021 4:31pm

looksee wrote: »

Well, yes, technically there is no longer a Republican majority, but it has not really taken effect yet. There is a sea change coming, hopefully, which is why I feel it is interesting to see if there was any justification for the previous situation, which could easily re-emerge in 4 or 8 years time.

Interestingly you have made some valid and accurate points about the three aspects of Republicanism I raised, but no argument as to whether their attitudes have any validity. For good reason. I can't come up with any either, but would be interested in hearing from anyone who can, even as a devil's advocate response.

I don't really know what valid means in this context. I believe that there are several million people in America who are sincere in their desire to maintain the status quo ranging from centre-right (by US standards) to the sort of dangerous people who stormed the Capitol.

looksee · 10-01-2021 5:36pm

Trump was not wrong when he said he got 74 million votes, almost half available votes, which is rather more than several million who wish to retain the status quo.

However I am struggling to follow the argument through, or even make my proposition make sense, because, while I do not believe it is possible to make a sensible argument, I would love to hear someone come up with some sort of sound reasoning for how the GOP can go along with the belief that the election was rigged and the GOP vision of Conservative America can be defended.

moon2 · 10-01-2021 5:51pm

looksee wrote: »

Just to throw in a devil's advocate question -

Trump is the president, with the authority that confers
There is a Republican majority in the Senate
Just about half of voting Americans voted for the GOP/Trump

There really does seem to be an argument for civil war/uprising if the above are accepted at face value.

Hold on a second. Fewer people voted for Trump than voted for Biden. Taken at face value, you believe this entitles trump to instigate a civil war[0]? Why?

What kind of margin would Biden need to have won by in order for it to not be grounds for civil war?

[0] I realise this is a devil's advocate position. It's just somewhat bonkers

Gbear · 10-01-2021 5:56pm

looksee wrote: »

There really does seem to be an argument for civil war/uprising if the above are accepted at face value.

By this, do you mean that the two divided liberal and conservative populations of the US cannot coexist peacefully?

I think it's important to drill down a bit into Republican stated policy, and how it relates to Fascism.

To a certain extent, Fascism isn't truly an ideology. It has a set of common beliefs, but focusing on the policies misses the point somewhat. The goal is centralising power. The means through which that is acheived is not based on principle. It is not a matter of acquiring power to enact beliefs, but rather, displaying beliefs in order to acquire power. It's an ideological parasite.

There are varying degrees to which this is true for the elected Republican party, but for Trump, who is at or near the extreme end, his polcies are everything and nothing. On the one hand he has talked about socialists taking people's guns. On the other, he's talked about taking guns and worrying about due process later (I'm paraphrasing).
He's sat atop the Republican party, who have totally opposed any form of public healthcare, while promising an improved healthcare system.
He's promised to build a wall to keep out brown people, while himself hiring illegal immigrant labour.
I could go on, but you see what I'm getting at.

There's a key difference in those who are making arguments based on principle, with whom policies can be argued, and people for whom arguments are simply a prop, designed to confuse and misdirect.

On healthcare, some gun-control, election security, money in politics, abortion, minimum wage, business bailouts, stimulus, funding public services, and on and on, the Republican party's legislative record is wildly out of kilter with not just Americans in general, but even their own supporters for most issues.

Republican voters want $2k stimulus cheques. It is sound economics to give them to them. Republican elected representatives do not want to give them to them. Maybe some are true believers in some kind of vague illiterate notion of fiscal responsibility, but more don't personally see the profit in doing so, so they oppose it.

I could go through each policy line by line, but the point is, in terms of playing devil's advocate, Republican politicans don't believe their own policies, and the Republican electorate don't support their own policies, so what's the point?

They're not about policies. They're not about facts. They're about identity.

If you're arguing with them, the only possible sort of argument I can see being worthwhile isn't so much the "what". The "what" they believe in is based in fantasy, or self-deception, or outright lies. Rather, the question should be the "why". Why do they hate and/or fear out-groups? Why do they trust the Capital class? Why do they feel disenfranchised?

And the solution to their radicalisation, if there is one, doesn't lie in acceding to their demands, because their demands are a moving target designed to weaken the opposition, rather than relating to material improvements in their lives. The solution is in undercutting the motivations for why they lash out, at an aggregate level - poverty, mental health, loss of status, etc. They're the same kinds of mechanics at play as with radical Islam.

purifol0 · 10-01-2021 6:04pm

You can easily flip that point - Hillary got millions more votes than Trump - She didn't win because individual votes don't equal state votes as opposed to Ireland where every citizens vote is equal. IMO that wouldn't justify civil war at all - but it would have justified individual states like California secedeing from the union. Since the wealthier "blue" states subvent the poorer "red" ones yet they were still under a Republican president & parliament.

~Rebel~ · 10-01-2021 7:22pm

looksee wrote: »

Trump was not wrong when he said he got 74 million votes, almost half available votes, which is rather more than several million who wish to retain the status quo.

However I am struggling to follow the argument through, or even make my proposition make sense, because, while I do not believe it is possible to make a sensible argument, I would love to hear someone come up with some sort of sound reasoning for how the GOP can go along with the belief that the election was rigged and the GOP vision of Conservative America can be defended.

You have the extremists who vote out of misplaced loyalties and long engrained prejudices. But the wider numbers of seemingly normal people are more interesting.

There's two to vote - for something, or against something.

For the first election, I think a huge amount of it was just pure frustration at feeling neglected by 'suits' as their local communities weren't necessarily seeing the economic improvement of bigger cities, with a reasonably large number not necessarily harbouring the racist destructive opinions of the hardcore, and instead just voting for a shake-up of some kind. To be noticed and recognised.

For this election it shifted a bit, and I think was more down to a push on fear of the 'extreme other'. Fear of a potential dem/left wing backlash against Trumpism. Fear that lines had already been drawn and sides picked. Fear that the divide had widened enough that the next government was gonna push more extreme in whichever direction was selected, so you had to double down or get fucked over.

listermint · 10-01-2021 7:39pm

You are actually arguing for fascism not democracy.

Democracy is built on numbers and compromise.

You've made the clear argument for facism and authoritarianism.

Why ?

looksee · 10-01-2021 9:06pm

I am not arguing for anything. I am trying to tease out whether there is any possibility that we are so busy being an anti trump / gop echo chamber that we are being blinded to what that almost 50% of the US population is seeing.

I don't think we are, I think the set up is rotten through and through and Trump was a populist tv show star which combined with 'anyone but Hilary' resulted in a fluke election result - just. However in a spirit of trying to understand 70-odd million people's preference - that is a staggering number of people - I am offering the opportunity for someone to explain it to me.

Most people previously who have come in and tried to explain it has been eventually banned from the Trump thread because their arguments were specious but persistent, or abusive in some way, or trolling. There must be someone out there who can come up with a coherent argument, I would like to hear it.

Edit - I am not really expecting too many answers, but all I have so far is evidence of the problems people have with the Trump/GOP situation.

johnnyskeleton · 10-01-2021 9:27pm

You want to know reasons why people voted for Trump? Well, there could be millions of different and individual reasons, but some of the main ones, as far as I can see are:

1) Republican party members will always vote Republican;
2) Trump's message was primarily aimed at the working class and disenfranchised. In America, where there is huge wealth and income inequality, the disenfranchised is a massive portion of the population;
3) He spoke about ending corruption and lobbying etc, which resonates with a lot of people;
4) He is a reality TV star, and some people voted for him due to name recognition;
5) His irreverent attitude and caustic comments go down well with lots of people;
6) His policy of withdrawing from international affairs and costly wars is quite popular;
7) His stance on immigration is quite popular;
8) His promise to bring back American jobs made people feel good'
9) His talk of America First and MAGA made people feel proud in a chauvanistic sort of way;
10) If all your neighbours are voting for Trump;
11) Some people probably do believe the conspiracy theories too.

So there are lots of reasons why people would vote for Trump, some good, some bad, some downright daft. When everyone else stood for business as usual, Trump stood for change. Now, he didn't actually follow through on that promised change much, but enough so that a significant minority of voters thought he should get a second term.

To my mind, the real question is what the Republican party is going to do next. I don't really see how they can simply pretend Trump never happened, so they are going to have to own him and his policies into the future. I don't think there can be any going back for them, not like the way Labour went to Corbyn for a bit before going back to centre.

Gbear · 10-01-2021 10:00pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So there are lots of reasons why people would vote for Trump, some good, some bad, some downright daft. When everyone else stood for business as usual, Trump stood for change. Now, he didn't actually follow through on that promised change much, but enough so that a significant minority of voters thought he should get a second term.

That raises an issue with the 2020 election. Whatever about rolling the dice the first time, we've seen the 2nd highest turnout in the history of American democracy in favour of Trump (only, thankfully, beaten by Biden). It does not look like Trump lost that many votes. It looks like he did turnout more non-republicans however.

So while that may have been the case in 2016, those people haven't seen anything they didn't like in the intervening years.

I absolutely get the change thing. **** me, I nearly would've been tempted in 2016 myself (if I was eligible). But the notion of people doing it for a laugh because they didn't think he would win, or believing that he had produced meaningful change, is difficult to square with the 2020 turnout.

Further muddying the waters, of course, is the incumbency advantage. Perhaps incumbency is truly an absolute layup for getting reelected, and the fact that Trump wasn't speaks volumes, but the kind of voters, in the quantity he got, is incredibly troubling. Florida should've been a landslide for Democrats. This socialism bull**** shouldn't be landing, even among the commuphobic Cuban population.

Rjd2 · 10-01-2021 10:07pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You want to know reasons why people voted for Trump? Well, there could be millions of different and individual reasons, but some of the main ones, as far as I can see are:

1) Republican party members will always vote Republican;
2) Trump's message was primarily aimed at the working class and disenfranchised. In America, where there is huge wealth and income inequality, the disenfranchised is a massive portion of the population;
3) He spoke about ending corruption and lobbying etc, which resonates with a lot of people;
4) He is a reality TV star, and some people voted for him due to name recognition;
5) His irreverent attitude and caustic comments go down well with lots of people;
6) His policy of withdrawing from international affairs and costly wars is quite popular;
7) His stance on immigration is quite popular;
8) His promise to bring back American jobs made people feel good'
9) His talk of America First and MAGA made people feel proud in a chauvanistic sort of way;
10) If all your neighbours are voting for Trump;
11) Some people probably do believe the conspiracy theories too.

So there are lots of reasons why people would vote for Trump, some good, some bad, some downright daft. When everyone else stood for business as usual, Trump stood for change. Now, he didn't actually follow through on that promised change much, but enough so that a significant minority of voters thought he should get a second term.

To my mind, the real question is what the Republican party is going to do next. I don't really see how they can simply pretend Trump never happened, so they are going to have to own him and his policies into the future. I don't think there can be any going back for them, not like the way Labour went to Corbyn for a bit before going back to centre.

Culture wars is also another reason why people vote Trump etc.

So many of the GOP power hitters that is the only thing they talk about it because they know they have little else to offer voters. Look at Cotton, Crenshaw, Cruz etc.

Trump was essentially Harvey Dent , his public persona was that of a man who wanted the establishment up and fight for the forgotten.

However when he got power he was Zombie Reganism on steroids, he gave Paul Ryan his tax cuts, Mitch his judges and spent the rest of the time arguing on twitter.

Its very messy for the GOP going forward, the people who fund the party are for the most part hardcore libertarians obsessed with the free markets and unconcerned about immigration and social issues, while the actual voters are increasingly socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

Example last week when the GOP establishment said no the supposed free money that was the 2k stimulus, while in polls voters wanted it.

Manic Moran · 11-01-2021 5:13pm

Gbear wrote: »

That raises an issue with the 2020 election. Whatever about rolling the dice the first time, we've seen the 2nd highest turnout in the history of American democracy in favour of Trump (only, thankfully, beaten by Biden). It does not look like Trump lost that many votes. It looks like he did turnout more non-republicans however.

So while that may have been the case in 2016, those people haven't seen anything they didn't like in the intervening years.

I absolutely get the change thing. **** me, I nearly would've been tempted in 2016 myself (if I was eligible). But the notion of people doing it for a laugh because they didn't think he would win, or believing that he had produced meaningful change, is difficult to square with the 2020 turnout.

It may be worth looking at the difference in numbers between the percentage of people who voted for him and the percentage of people who viewed him favorably. There were more of the former than of the latter.

Whatever his faults as a person, WW3 didn't happen (Indeed, troop deployments went down), the stock market kept rising, and, until the COVID problem hit, unemployment was going down. He was putting acceptable (if you voted for him in 2016) people into the courts, was taking action on the border, taxes didn't go up (they went down for a lot of folks), no silly gun laws enacted. This may also be part of why his favorability rating (low 40s, as I recall? Still higher than Congress') was even then as high as it was: People responding on the basis of the actions of his administration, not whether or not he's a a good person. Even if you approve of things many Republicans don't, such as ACA, abortion, LGBT issues: ACA, abortion, gay marriage etc still exist so the worst Trump was able to do was, it turned out, very little. No reason to believe this would change in the next term.

Perhaps not the best situation possible, but to the average person living life, pretty acceptable. Another four years of that isn't awful. On the other hand, his opponent's a Democrat who, even though he's moderate, still represents a party which indicates very little kinship with a large portion of the electorate. Especially the visible members thereof.

If you look at it that way, the election result is not unfathomable.

There really does seem to be an argument for civil war/uprising if the above are accepted at face value.

No more than there were after Trump won in 2016, which is basically as near to 'none' as makes no difference. For all the bizarreness and embarassment of the last two months, the country is still functioning more or less as intended. We still have freedom of press, a new elected government is going into office pursuant to the rules of the elections, and there is no reason to think that in two years the next election will be any less respected.

Frankly, I think a lot of the 'civil war' business would be eliminated if people stopped looking at Congress to make nationwide solutions to things which can be done at the state level if those states want to do it, but I seem to be a minority viewpoint on that.

Right now, to answer your question in the title, there is very little to be said for the GOP/Trump at the national level as a body. There are perfectly good Republicans in the party, and even in Congress, but they don't seem to be in positions of influence or of great visibility. For a large portion of the population, it's a negative benefit: "At least they're not espousing the ideals Democrats are".

AlanG · 11-01-2021 5:28pm

I'm in no way a Trump supporter but if you want his positives:

- First US president not to start a war in many years. (he still has a week or so)
- ordered a lot less assignations than his predecessor who loved drone strikes.
- Less people in Guantanamo bay than during previous administrations.
- Kept quite a few promises to his base - people got what they voted for (not necessarily good things).
- MOst importantly he put more pressure on China than any other administration (possibly not for the right reasons) - When this period is looked back on in 200 years most political history lessons will skip from the fall of Communism to the rise of authoritarian China (and why no democratic country did anything to stop it). Most of the rest will be considered irrelevant.

ancapailldorcha · 11-01-2021 5:37pm

AlanG wrote: »

I'm in no way a Trump supporter but if you want his positives:

- First US president not to start a war in many years. (he still has a week or so)
- ordered a lot less assignations than his predecessor who loved drone strikes.
- Less people in Guantanamo bay than during previous administrations.
- Kept quite a few promises to his base - people got what they voted for (not necessarily good things).
- MOst importantly he put more pressure on China than any other administration (possibly not for the right reasons) - When this period is looked back on in 200 years most political history lessons will skip from the fall of Communism to the rise of authoritarian China (and why no democratic country did anything to stop it). Most of the rest will be considered irrelevant.

What war did Obama start?

Trump's recorded number of drone strikes exceed Obama's:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/2019/5/8/18619206/under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

I didn't see him applying any pressure to China. I've seen footage of him embarrassing himself in front of Xi Jinping and he has a predilection for fawning over tyrants and autocrats.

He also signed an executive order to keep it open:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/30/guantanamo-bay-trump-signs-executive-order-to-keep-prison-open

In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump said he had directed the defence secretary, James Mattis, “to re-examine our military detention policy and to keep open the detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay”. He added that he expected that “in many cases” captured terrorists would be sent to the camp.

The Trump executive order instructs Mattis, in consultation with the secretary of state and other officials, to deliver a new policy on battlefield detentions, “including policies governing transfer of individuals to US Naval Station Guantánamo Bay” within 90 days.

It is the latest in a long series of policies pursued by Barack Obama that Trump has reversed. Obama signed an order calling for Guantánamo Bay to be closed on his second day in office in 2009, but he was never able carry out that policy to its conclusion.

Brussels Sprout · 11-01-2021 6:43pm

When you boil it all down the GOP is now just a vehicle for the perpetuation of the transfer of resources from everyone else to the wealthiest in society. Everything else is just a smokescreen to cloud this fact and give them the fig-leaf of virtues such as "liberty", "faith" and "self-determination".

I cannot even argue for them in the hypothetical. They are an abomination.

FatherTed · 11-01-2021 10:30pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

It may be worth looking at the difference in numbers between the percentage of people who voted for him and the percentage of people who viewed him favorably. There were more of the former than of the latter.

Whatever his faults as a person, WW3 didn't happen (Indeed, troop deployments went down), the stock market kept rising, and, until the COVID problem hit, unemployment was going down. He was putting acceptable (if you voted for him in 2016) people into the courts, was taking action on the border, taxes didn't go up (they went down for a lot of folks), no silly gun laws enacted. This may also be part of why his favorability rating (low 40s, as I recall? Still higher than Congress') was even then as high as it was: People responding on the basis of the actions of his administration, not whether or not he's a a good person. Even if you approve of things many Republicans don't, such as ACA, abortion, LGBT issues: ACA, abortion, gay marriage etc still exist so the worst Trump was able to do was, it turned out, very little. No reason to believe this would change in the next term.

He tried his damdest to get rid of ACA and they've been saying for 10 years their plan is better. What plan? There is NOTHING. As for abortion, he sure appointed a ton of anti-abortion judges at different levels so that is not over yet.

Perhaps not the best situation possible, but to the average person living life, pretty acceptable. Another four years of that isn't awful. On the other hand, his opponent's a Democrat who, even though he's moderate, still represents a party which indicates very little kinship with a large portion of the electorate. Especially the visible members thereof.

If you look at it that way, the election result is not unfathomable.

Large portion of the electorate? The Dems have gotten more votes than the Republicans in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. Yet it is the smaller party are the ones who are disenfranchised?

Manic Moran · 11-01-2021 10:42pm

FatherTed wrote: »

He tried his damdest to get rid of ACA and they've been saying for 10 years their plan is better. What plan? There is NOTHING. As for abortion, he sure appointed a ton of anti-abortion judges at different levels so that is not over yet.

I'm not arguing their intent, I'm arguing their demonstrated ability. If they've been unable for ten years to scupper ACA, it seems unlikely they'll manage it in the next four, especially with a likely Democrat House majority. It's not a major real-world factor.

Large portion of the electorate? The Dems have gotten more votes than the Republicans in 7 of the last 8 presidential elections. Yet it is the smaller party are the ones who are disenfranchised?

I would say 47% is a large portion. I never said they were the majority or even the plurality.

FatherTed · 12-01-2021 6:04pm

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not arguing their intent, I'm arguing their demonstrated ability. If they've been unable for ten years to scupper ACA, it seems unlikely they'll manage it in the next four, especially with a likely Democrat House majority. It's not a major real-world factor.

I would say 47% is a large portion. I never said they were the majority or even the plurality.

Alright yes its a large number of people but except for the racists and faux religious crowd, the rest probably have more in common with democratic principles than republican ones. However, they are blinded by lies they choose to believe and their devotion to their showbiz totalitarian in chief.

Imreoir2 · 13-01-2021 3:07am

The one and only thing I will say for Trump is he did not drag America into a war. He could have done it, and it probably would have been popular with his base to go after the likes of Iran.

I detest everything else to do with Trump, but his awful policy choices are not a reason to remove him from power. The reason to remove him from power is that he activly promoted an insurrection against the US government.

Retr0gamer · 13-01-2021 11:13am

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The one and only thing I will say for Trump is he did not drag America into a war. He could have done it, and it probably would have been popular with his base to go after the likes of Iran.

I detest everything else to do with Trump, but his awful policy choices are not a reason to remove him from power. The reason to remove him from power is that he activly promoted an insurrection against the US government.

He got very lucky that Iran didn't get out of hand because of the assassination at the start of 2020.

And pulling troops out of Syria to let US allies and civilians get massacred has to be weighed against not starting any wars. Totally cowardly.

AlanG · 13-01-2021 6:53pm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I didn't see him applying any pressure to China. I've seen footage of him embarrassing himself in front of Xi Jinping and he has a predilection for fawning over tyrants and autocrats.

You really don't recall the tariff wars with China - it massively disrupted trade with China and had a major impact on many US business. He stopped Chinese communist party controlled companies getting control of 5G in the US. He has also opened relations with Taiwan. Its not a lot but if you cant see that he did more to take on China than any other politician it is remarkable.

What other world leader of any significance has done more to counter China in the last 10 years?

Retr0gamer · 13-01-2021 7:14pm

AlanG wrote: »

You really don't recall the tariff wars with China - it massively disrupted trade with China and had a major impact on many US business. He stopped Chinese communist party controlled companies getting control of 5G in the US. He has also opened relations with Taiwan. Its not a lot but if you cant see that he did more to take on China than any other politician it is remarkable.

What other world leader of any significance has done more to counter China in the last 10 years?

Pretty much the vast majority considering he did absolutely nothing. The tariffs were placed on companies importing into america not on the Chinese exporters. So he was effectively taxing americans.

He didn't annoy the Chinese and he couldn't because china makes the majority of the worlds electronics and controls the majority of the earth's supply of rare elements that are crucial for the electronic industry.

ancapailldorcha · 13-01-2021 7:18pm

AlanG wrote: »

You really don't recall the tariff wars with China - it massively disrupted trade with China and had a major impact on many US business. He stopped Chinese communist party controlled companies getting control of 5G in the US. He has also opened relations with Taiwan. Its not a lot but if you cant see that he did more to take on China than any other politician it is remarkable.

What other world leader of any significance has done more to counter China in the last 10 years?

Can't say that I recall any of this. I do recall US farmers and businesses being hurt by his pointless trade wars with the EU and China.

Gbear · 13-01-2021 8:59pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

He got very lucky that Iran didn't get out of hand because of the assassination at the start of 2020.

And pulling troops out of Syria to let US allies and civilians get massacred has to be weighed against not starting any wars. Totally cowardly.

Trump had no plan or any coherent theory about foreign policy, other than laziness and impulsive belligerence, so you can look at the results and say they were good, bad or indifferent, but they don't create any kind of roadmap or strategy to follow and can't be praised as a success for Trump or his cabinet.

It'd be like tripping and falling into a stack of buckets of paint, it spilling onto a canvas and making something that looks nice and, as a result, trying to promote tripping and falling into buckets of paint as an effective way to produce art.

beggars_bush · 13-01-2021 9:19pm

looksee wrote: »

Trump was not wrong when he said he got 74 million votes, almost half available votes, which is rather more than several million who wish to retain the status quo.

However I am struggling to follow the argument through, or even make my proposition make sense, because, while I do not believe it is possible to make a sensible argument, I would love to hear someone come up with some sort of sound reasoning for how the GOP can go along with the belief that the election was rigged and the GOP vision of Conservative America can be defended.

Biggest loser in history
Let that be on his headstone

Is there anything to be said for the GOP/Trump?

Comments