Quote (ThatAlex @ Dec 12 2018 12:07pm)

I'm not a huge fan for giving Trump a cookie for the bolded unless it is strictly in the context of justifying not voting for Clinton/the Democrat. The average replacement Republican President does the same exact thing, and I don't see Liberals giving Obama credit for appointing SCOTUS justices or federal judges. Pointing to those as achievements reeks of desperation to me.

His biggest achievement domestically is tax reform...but even then, that piece of legislation was unpopular with the majority of Americans, which is crazy for a tax cut. He even had to fake promise middle class tax cuts right before the midterms in a desperate attempt to cull some of the unpopularity. The other notable domestic events were the GOP's whiff on repealing the ACA, which probably can't be all pinned on Trump (but was a big disaster for the party regardless) and also no border wall which was actually his #1 campaign promise. There's also been no laws addressing immigration reform, which more broadly was Trump's biggest issue.

A lot of the things you are mentioning are rather nebulous...pushing back on PC culture, ending myths on immigration, reigniting Conservative energy, exposing liberal bias, etc. Like Snipa mentioned, these achievements are temporary if anything, and also reek of desperation to me to try and justify him having a good Presidency thus far.

In my opinion, the biggest area Trump could "win" on is foreign policy. If the North Korea stuff plays out well, if he's successful with trade talks with China, if he's successful at bringing Americans better trade agreements, does not enter us into a disastrous foreign war etc, those could all be huge wins. But the jury is still out.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 12 2018 01:30pm)

I'm not saying Trump had a good presidency thus far. I was just pointing out that he does have quite something to show, he's not standing there with his pants down and hands empty. But even on policy/substance, his presidency has not lived up to the high expectations. From an "I want shit to get done"-perspective, it has probably been a rather disappointing presidency up until this point. Far and away his biggest accomplishment has been preventing a Clinton presidency, which would have amounted to the total triumph of modern, "identity politics" liberalism and, as Excellence once put it in a rare moment of productivity, "the end of anything remotely conservative".

And yes, the expectations that Trump would just waltz into the White House and start single-handedly fixing everything going wrong against the resistance of half the country that voted for his opponent and hates his guts, half his own party who would prefer to continue with the Koch brothers agenda, and ~80% of the media - those expectations were always silly and unrealistic.

The healthcare debacle and the lack of progress on the border wall show that the GOP isnt a unified, well-oiled machine acting in concert. The party is torn on a lot of issues, and has been before Trump even announced his candidacy. He has been a rather ineffective party leader, but those policy shortcomings are not exclusively on him.

edit: to phrase it differently: do you think a President Mike Pence would have gotten a larger amount of meaningful laws passed?

Quote (thesnipa @ Dec 12 2018 03:39pm)

Yes.

when people talk about the non-unified GOP party all i can think of is duh. 35% of GOP primary voters got Trump the nomination. too many people in early and he simply had the largest following. the key difference is that Rubio voters, jeb voter, Cruze voters, Kasich voters, etc would all have been happy with someone from that bunch getting the nod. they were all less than happy with Trump, and they still are. they cautiously voted for trump in the general election because the only other choice was HRC.

but Pence is right in line with their preferred gop platform/rhetoric, and would unarguably be more successful.


anyone who fails to recognize that Trump has about 35% support from his own party has already started off from a bad place. he has more of a % in acceptance, but i dont think he's gotten much more in the way of support with his presidency. and even people like Evangelicals only support him for justices, which may be mission complete.

Quote (thesnipa @ 12 Dec 2018 21:39)

Yes.

when people talk about the non-unified GOP party all i can think of is duh. 35% of GOP primary voters got Trump the nomination. too many people in early and he simply had the largest following. the key difference is that Rubio voters, jeb voter, Cruze voters, Kasich voters, etc would all have been happy with someone from that bunch getting the nod. they were all less than happy with Trump, and they still are. they cautiously voted for trump in the general election because the only other choice was HRC.

but Pence is right in line with their preferred gop platform/rhetoric, and would unarguably be more successful.


anyone who fails to recognize that Trump has about 35% support from his own party has already started off from a bad place. he has more of a % in acceptance, but i dont think he's gotten much more in the way of support with his presidency. and even people like Evangelicals only support him for justices, which may be mission complete.

Quote (Mastersam93 @ 12 Dec 2018 21:58)

Any republican with half a brain can see that Trump is not good for the party long-term.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 12 2018 03:26pm)

I have to strongly disagree with your take on the 2016 GOP primary. Trump imho won exactly because he brought a fresh tone and fresh ideas which broke with republican orthodoxy. You make it sound like Trump only had minority support form the republican base while the establishment platform, represented by Bush, Rubio, Kasich and others, had a majority. You make it sound like Trump only won because his base happened to be slightly larger than that of every single establishment candidate, and because he got lucky since the supporters of the interchangable establishment candidates didnt rally around a single candidate in time.

But if this were true, why wasnt one of them the last man standing against Trump? If only 35 or so % of the republican base wanted Trump-style "rude populism" while a majority was fine with a traditional candidate/platform, then why was his last opponent fellow outlaw and populist firebrand Ted Cruz, and not one of the establishment guys? And is it really a coincidence that Jeb Bush, the one candidate who was the epitome of "reach out to latinos, be moderate and considerate in tone", was getting massacred like no other major candidate in this primary despite spending a shit ton of money?

And what do you mean with "he has more % in acceptance, but not much more than (35%) in support"? Trump's approval rating with registered republicans is at 89% according to Gallup!
https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

Quote

You make it sound like Trump only had minority support form the republican base while the establishment platform, represented by Bush, Rubio, Kasich and others, had a majority. You make it sound like Trump only won because his base happened to be slightly larger than that of every single establishment candidate, and because he got lucky since the supporters of the interchangable establishment candidates didnt rally around a single candidate in time.

Quote (thesnipa @ 12 Dec 2018 22:35)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries


as to support vs acceptance, i can accept my son is gay without supporting it. seems like a straightforward statement, im not sure what's confusing.

Quote

that's 100% what im saying, 100% what happened. that's reality. that's history. that's unarguable. u can try tho.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Dec 12 2018 04:27pm)

so how do you classify "89% approval rating with republicans" - is that "acceptance" or "support"? and how does "89% approval" mesh with your theory that Trump's takeover of the republican party was not just a hostile one against party elites, but also a hostile one against the majority of the base?





I already did. Sorry, I'm not in the mood to discuss this in greater detail. I see your point, dont get me wrong, I just disagree with it for the reasons I laid out in my previous post. It's two weeks before Christmas, the fresh PoE league is neat, maybe next time.

to back up my core claim that in 2016, a majority of the republican base did no longer want the previous agenda, have a look at the following, very interesting read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/01/the-great-republican-revolt/419118/

even back in january 2016, the atlantic already published this piece detailing how the GOP base was revolting against the agenda of the GOP party elites, i.e. against the agenda of the Rubios, Bushs, Romneys and Kasichs.