The debate "Donald Trump for president in 2016" was started by
January 8, 2016, 10:35 pm.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 43 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Aditya04 posted 1 argument, Monster posted 2 arguments, migaut posted 1 argument, PsychDave posted 5 arguments, xjackts posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Sachin_21, rob5998, David, sabrina, AngryBlogger, RightWing, duelist1, jayhard and 6 visitors agree.
PsychDave, M, Sumerian, adityakurniawan, Aditya04, Naruto_uchiha, progressive, Monster, godisjustsomethingwemade, dalia, migaut, Zzmo, Wookie, solo10166, Dhruv, Band_Nerd_24, gamelia94, ReadyToBegin, FlyingCookie, swp16, xjackts, AlenaMaisel, WaspToxin, thatdebatingchick and 19 visitors disagree.
Why would you elect someone like trump. Who wants to ban all Muslims from entering the country. Doesn't he know that to be able to defeat Isis we need Muslims on our side. If we banned all Muslims most Muslim countrys wouldn't wanna work with us would they, foreign policy is very important and saying random things like this would not be good for US-Arab relations.
I wouldn't advocate for Donald Trump, but I don't prefer many of the candidates over him. The only other person who could do better is Bernie Sanders because while his economics is flawed, he has integrity. Socially, he would work well, I'm not sure on his foreign stance but a president wouldn't have too much power, just enough to provide direction. So maybe I don't see his ideals working, but that wouldn't matter because they wouldn't happen with Republicans controlling the house. But Sanders won't be the frontrunner for the democratic party, it will be Hillary. And anyone would be better than Hillary, even Trump. Trump wouldn't get his choice on foreign policy, because people like him hire experts to see what can and can't be done. As president, he would find that much of what he's running on can't be done, that won't mean he'd give up, or have the support he needs to get it done, but businessmen like him wouldn't work without their advisors. Hopefully, there will be someone else other than Trump that will take lead, I can't say that Marco Rubio hasn't made a good case, or at least Hillary doesn't win.
Before you respond I want you to stop, take a deep breath, and read the comments that you are responding to.
No one has said he didn't accomplish anything. Using that as your primary argument is a strawman argument. Stop repeatedly denying something no one has claimed and either respond to the arguments or concede the debate.
If occupying another nation is a sign of a failing country, Bush led the nation to failure. You can't blame Obama for the mess the Republicans left for him to try to clean up.
again call Obama care nothing. also so now we are copying other countries? that is a sign of a falling country
Giving affordable health care is a good thing and every other developed nation has it. Republicans are opposed to it. Obama won elections by saying he was going to implement it. That means the population supported him.
I didn't say Obama had as much potential as Reagan, I said they were in similar situations. Both had recessions, and both didn't control both Houses. Reagan saw support from his opponents to try to help the nation. Obama saw nothing but intentional sabotage. Do you honestly think that defaulting on debt and damaging the nations economy was a good thing when it didn't actually accomplish anything?
whoa, your saying Obama had as much potential as Reagan? rebublicans tried to stop Obama for a reason. look at the things Obama has done. he has done stuff, you act like he has no power. he's done bad things, so rebublicans try to keep him from doing more bad things.
with Reagan, he was a boss, and Democrats supported him because of his good ideas.
A quick Google search could show you the number of times the Republican held House of Representatives blocked bills and even forced a government shutdown, hurting the US economy and standing in the world.
Ronald Reagan, widely regarded as one of the best presidents in history, had the support of his Democrat opposition when he implemented Reaganomics, which was unproven at the time. This succeeded in pulling the US out of depression. Modern Republican leaders were too busy playing partisan politics to try to help the nation. Had they been willing to cooperate, we might see the US in a lot better position today.
well your arguing the leader is not responsible for problems.
I didn't say they managed to block absolutely everything. but are you actually going to try to argue they didn't try to jam up government? it is undeniable fact.
if rebublicans can "jam up the goverment" why did Obama care happen?
being weak has absolutely nothing to do with it. the Republican party won enough seats to completely jam up government. they did this not because the things Obama was trying to do were bad, but because they wanted to profit from it.
that had far less to do with Obama's weakness as it does with Republican corruption.
I think that not holding the leader responsible shows your ignorance for how things work. thoughout history good leaders won, they made good things happen. bad leaders lost. bad leaders don't win, and good leaders don't loose.
to say republicans blocked his actions would imply Obama is weak; Obama care shows he is not weak.
Blaming the leader of one nation for the international economy demonstrates ignorance of how the world works. Is Obama the best president in history? No, not at all. But part of his ineffectiveness lies with the Republicans blocking his actions, and part of it lies with the state of the global economy. We will never know if he could have brought about the change he won his elections by promising, but saying that it is all his fault diminishes the credibility of the rest of your opinions on the matter.
You understand Obama being a democrat is trying to undo everything Bush, a republican, did. Bush was an imbecile. And if you would prefer Trump to be president then you are insane. Not saying you do but I would probably have to lynch you for that.
To be fair, Putin would know that his enforcement would be a negative and could endorse candidates to hurt their campaign.
puttin has endorsed him. being endorsed by a tyrannical, KGB thug is not a good thing.
I don't believe putin has a vote in this election.
You know you have a bad candidate when someone like Vladimir Putin votes for him
let's see, the us is in decline right now, and has been for the past few years. who has been the pres for the past few years? Obama. I blame the leader for problems, not someone running for election now, nor a leader 10 years ago, and I certainly don't ignore the problems.
You're seriously blaming Obama for that?
where have you been the past 8 years? the US is already in decline.
he is a little hyperactive and may lead the united States to its decline