1. "would normally be considered as political errors?"
What are "normal" political errors? Do you have a list for comparison? — raza
2."he remain in his position in spite of the backlash"
"Backlash", to me, simply means there are those that disagree but with an emotional emphasis. Being emotional is itself a very used tool in politics and political debate (feigned or exaggerated for effect is common). — raza
3. The failed Muslim ban?
Failed? It was eventually changed to Executive Order 13769. Obama restricted visa waivers for those seven Muslim-majority countries — Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. — raza
4. The steel and aluminium tariffs?
Time may tell how this will pan out. — raza
5. Moving the US embassy?
Many previous presidents have said they would do this, including Obama, and then did not. Obama voiced his opinion that he recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capitol but back his opinion in actuality. Weak, maybe? — raza
6. Appearing weak and manipulated by Putin?
"Appearances". Yours and others opinion. You forget or did not know of H. Clinton special moments with Putin or Obama caught on a hot mic leaning toward Russian ambassador saying he will be able to discuss things with Putin after the (2012) election? How did that "appear"? Or is it that mainstream media tried hard to not make it "appear"? — raza
7. "I would love to hear your apologetics on how these are in fact heroic acts worthy of the greatest admiration."
I never said I perceived Trump as a hero or that I greatly admired him. Was that question sophism, perhaps, or did you just interpret something wrongly - an honest mistake? — raza
I don't need to provide a list, and I shouldn't have to explain to you the kind of things which are normally considered to be political errors during a presidential term. Use your head. A failure to meet a goal, a strategy that backfires, an action which lowers your approval rating, or harms your chances of reelection, or damages your reputation or the reputation of your party, or damages key international relations, or harms the economy, or loses you public support, or results in widespread condemnation, and so on, and so fort — Sapientia
Yes, failed. He has failed to implement a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”, as he said during the 2016 presidential campaign. He also had failures along the road which lead to the Supreme Court's narrow ruling (5 - 4) on the final version of his executive order, which is not the Muslim ban he spoke of during his campaign. His first executive order failed and was reversed and he then had to revoke and replace the original. — Sapientia
Human lives, peace, and stability are much more important than whether or not a president will appear weak for not sticking to his word or following opinion with action. Trump knowingly endangered lives and the stability of the region effected. He cost lives by going ahead with it. It is better that Obama exercised restraint, even if it made him look weak — Sapientia
And please stop with the red herrings. They are not a valid argument. This isn't about Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Whether or not they have similarly appeared weak is irrelevant to whether or not Trump has appeared weak. This is about Donald Trump — Sapientia
Don't overlook the possibility of higher GDP growth this year, even if it's not 4.1%. Lower taxes have historically been stimulative. The problem is that this growth is paid for by running up more debt, and this debt will be unsustainable because deficits have grown (increasing the debt) and interest on the national debt rises with interest rates. Interest on the debt will eventually overwhelm the budget at this rate. This is a booby trap for the next (Democratic) president, who will unavoidably have to raise taxes, which will be a drag on the economy.That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls.
Why should it trickle down? The point is to have an economy that offers the possibility for economic opportunities, not to have as wide as possible a distribution of capital. A world with a thriving economy is a world of opportunity - a world where people dare to start business, take risks, etc. because they know there are opportunities out there which are worth the risks. Whereas the convoluted, socialist world that the Democrats aimed for is a world where few people take risks, where everyone wants a cozy place because life is too scary, etc.Yeah, but it ain't trickling down? Why? — Posty McPostface
You are wrong. The moves Trump made, including slashing taxes, setting up trade barriers and promoting local industry/investments are pure gold. Investments are the key to GDP growth, investments drive confidence & production which drives consumption. Improving the trade balance also positively affects the GDP.That's been debunked by just about every economist as a temporary blip initiated by Trump’s failing trade war, which is already requiring billion dollar bailouts. Anyone who thinks the US will have grown by 4.1% by the end of the year, in other words that this is "very sustainable" in Trump's words, needs to be provided with a very tight jacket and locked in a room with bouncy walls. — Baden
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.