The debate "Trump is a bad president" was started by
May 10, 2018, 4:17 pm.
108 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 75 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 7 arguments, Saam posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
chickboy1776 posted 1 argument, Simonderp posted 2 arguments, MrShine posted 4 arguments, Andrewchaney69420 posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Lennon13, Audrey, kalel, historybuff, Against_eu, geek, SMNR, abdulbasit, Ya3ya6, luljeta101, Saam, SaffronSHAM3, PhrozenKeyy, Fowling and 94 visitors agree.
MrShine, Keto, chickboy1776, Simonderp, Andrewchaney69420, Drakgo, RealCaffNasty, mlowe, Ateet, Alex, tenyiyi, maulik, Jasleen, followdearros, sabrina, Aaronr12, Debater1127 and 58 visitors disagree.
It seems that critising; presidents is a good thing especially trump, critising one presidents isn't enough lendon b. Johnson he was a open source of criticism, J. F. K was a president which could lead to the 3rd world war so it all defends trump as ok president not bad nor good
and recent evidence suggests that North Korea is still building more missiles. this would mean that trump is touting a deal in which he legitimized a Tyranical dictator and got absolutely nothing.
so far trump seems like he is a terrible negotiator.
that's the thing, he had convinced people he has done well with North Korea, but nothing really happened. they haven't actually agreed to anything. it's all hype at this point.
he is a upopular president, but it dose not mean than it is bad.everyone make(and do)wrong thing or unpouplar one.he did quite well of the north korea deal though but lose in other area like trade war and iran deal
"He has done more than any other
president", you sure about that guy?
and considering previous presidents have gotten stronger promises from N.Korea, I definitely dont see how he in any way did "more then any president" on this topic.
North Korea got recognition and validation on the world stage. it got the military excercizes between America and it's Ally cancelled. and if you believe north Korea, trump promised to end sanctions.
America got.... a promise to keep talking. after all the times trump has accused various agreements being terrible, the fact that he did so terribly is kind of hilarious.
what north Korea deal? I haven't heard about North Korea giving up anything at all. it is just trump making concessions to a dictator at this point.
gee, when obama negotiated with "rogue states" far less rogue then N.Korea, you hypocrites yelled a prez shouldnt even meet with rogue leaders
Ok. For one Donald Trump is not a bad president. He has done more than any other president. Especially since the north korea deal. Trump has not only negotiated with Kim Kong un about theire nuclear program, but has NOT FINISHED
You're going to have to prove that it was literally everyone else, before I can start caring why anyone else's opinion but America's. Maybe start by offering more than a general consensus that may not exist.
Other countries are in many of the deals, if they don't think any'll hold without America clearly there is a problem, and that problem isn't America.
no one else thinks the treaty was bad. everyone else agrees it was good and was working. Republicans are just willing to literally put the world at risk to score domestic political points. it's disgusting.
and you aren't the only people in the world. what makes your opinion more important than literally everyone else? you're basically that kid who take the ball and goes home in the middle of a game to pout. that kind of thinking makes you look like ******s.
If it's a bad deal, I should hope we would at the drop of a hat. It wasn't a deal just made either, it's been around for long enough to ask questions at least, and at best revise.
More economic than war, but money empowers who fights and who doesn't. If it's an arms race over the bigger button, of course that fight would be unfair... but that's the result of picking a fight with someone bigger. Oddly enough it has to be America that says or does something, never France or Britain or anyone who is more involved in these conflicts. Mabye a multicountry promise for future Israel/Palestine was a bad idea, and less countries in a treaty would have provided it? Supposed sins in competition are sharper in a friendly treaty.
And who was it in foreign, destabilized countries, Americans? Giving land to rebels that won't establish their own stable government? No matter how you feel about America being in another country it was Americans in another country fighting a problem. If the problems would just be solved after handing them over, maybe America wouldn't return every time a president promises we'll stay out. But that's life, let's see someone else step up to the plate. Will it be the rebels, or will another sponsoring country?
But at this point it isn't if America got a raw deal, its obvious these things were. Are other countries going to continue pushing these deals, or will they make a new one?
absolutely countries have broken deals. but lately it's just been America. who wants to deal with a country that will violate it's international agreements at the drop of a hat.
do you even understand what NATO is? no one is forcing you to spend absolutely absurd amounts of money on your military. likewise you should not try to force others to go trillions in debt so that you can feel good about how big your missile launching button is.
and how has America stuck it's neck out for anyone lately? invading iraq? no one wanted you to do that.
I'm going to have to debate you on following the rest of the world's decisions. I don't understand how it's common sense to the rest of the world, if it really is the rest of the world, and I shouldn't think my ideas are common sense either. Our inspection power is limited by the deal, if we are limited on the nuclear power we have allowed another country, it is easy enough to comply yet nuclearize.
I won't simplify it to question why allowing nuclear power will avoid abuse of it, but I will tell you even left leaning vox has been noted to post an article. Simple, but clear, the deal took options off the table for pressure, our only enforcement was the deal. Haven't countries broken deals before?https://www.vox.com/world/2018/5/8/17326650/iran-nuclear-deal-withdraw-trump-speech-goldberg-interview
Too early to be called a win, peace when we see it I at least agree. However, we could not have seen Kim yield outside of this presidency. Previously he and his family have been allowed to recoup when it was possible to put pressure. I wonder if Kim does opt for peace, will it be considered in spite of trump? It is a move in the right direction.
Again, going to need that common sense explained to me.We do have Allies, but because we make allowances. For example the Climate Agreement is not an enviornmental but economical plan. Discourage non-green energy, unless it can be justified through developing countries then it is also funded by the US. Industrial level production with America's check is enviornmental disaster and a debt. These countries don't want to go green, they want to be paid!
The way I see it, America has no reason to comply with NATO or other countries because America is not responsible for other countries. It shouldn't be responsible, but we do see America acting in unstable countries, for what end? For governments that cannot support themselves? Is it for peace? If it is for peace, NATO or the rest of the UN could stick their own necks out recently. They have before but not now. There is no right to demand from America.
The entire world other than Republicans and Israel think the Iran nuclear agreement was working. every agency agreed that they were complying by the terms of the agreement and not continuing their work on nuclear weapons. all blowing up the treaty does is increase the odds they get nuclear weapons. that is a terrible plan, and most of the world is trying to tell trump that.
trumps stand on North Korea might work out. but considering the meeting was on and off again and nothing has actually been agreed to, it is way too early to be calling it a win. it is promising. if it succeeds I will agree that it is a foreign policy success. but so far it's just a dictator and a want to be dictator having a meeting.
what about undermining NATO, starting trade wars with your allies, having the rest of the world agreeing that your country is acting like the world's biggest dicks. that isn't doing things for the world. that is the opposite.
It's easy to comply when the rules are set for easier avoidance of the rules. A deal is better when someone comes to the table offerning something that is beyond desired, rather than what it should already be; a deal made to set a country a way it should be will already have stipulations that ask America to reciprocate for simpler things. Frankly, the nuclear deal did not give the US any benefit or stabilize any region or regime. Benefits to Iran's people or anyone else is questionable, so why should America trouble itself?
North Korea wants the US to negotiate, because we agree and hold our end while North Korea does not. The risk of Nuclear war is mitigated by 1. A China that will not back a Nuclear Korea 2. Oriental Allies and Russia and 3. A incompetent nuclear system in North Korea. Even if they could hit something not one country would be at it's end, except for the end of the family dictator line. Dictators do not stay in power by merely exerting anger, and will not risk war.
All things including this considered, most attitudes before now were 'Peace when I see it'. Is there any reason to believe it is more than armistance, and that backing down Korea will give willingly? History suggests otherwise, and now Korea must come to the table offering more than denuclearization and may need to for 'good faith'. The same Korean leader that assassinates his relatives and starves his people.
I was in the treason conversation... didn't exactly prove treason, and was a bit of bad faith towards my points. You may have been correct that there was stagnation, but in the context of the many decades that has been stagnant, the debatable state of that stagnation, and how it is a 'comparison' without a mechanic I would say it is better to wipe the slate clean and stick to the facts here.
so all the multinational independent accounts of their compliance were fabricated lies? really?
there has been nothing done on immigration policy, and the only change is people arrested for checking in at court or dropping their kids off at school.
N.Korea turned out ok, but his tough stance has a good risk of starting a nuclear war with a mad man. it turned out ok, but did he even know what he was doing or just responding to personal taunts? and that's that's assuming N.Korea isnt lying like they did many times before.
tax cuts for who? the people hoarding all our GDP gains while the rest of us stagnate? yeah they totally needed more relief... I have a post arguing that tax cut was treason if your interested.
The Iran nuclear deal just funded their program they were secretly using
Trump had taken a stand against Iran, North Korea, and Syrian chemical weapons attack. he has given tax cuts an fixed are train wreck of an immigration system
wait, are you actually serious? I understand why some people think he has done stuff for America. he hasn't, he is a train wreck. but could you possibly argue he has done for the world?
tanking a nuclear with Iran so they start up their nuclear program again?
start trade wars with America's allies?
pull out of global warming agreements?
what exactly has trump done for the world that isn't terrible?
He has done so much for our country and the world