My Facebook page is filled with criticisms of all the craziness in the world due to Trump’s actions, and of course most of the news and websites I read are similar. Because I usually use Facebook to see what my friends are doing, or to look at pictures of cats, ducks, and other animals, I find the constant harping on Trump and his deeds depressing. That’s not because I disagree with these views; as should be clear by now, I think the man is mentally ill and that his presidency has been a disaster, with him veering between one crazy, drastic decision and another. (The threat to take over Greenland was merely the latest dumbass move.)
I say this because I think I need to make my position clear before I ask a question. And the question is this:
What do you think are the beneficial things Trump has done?
Why am I asking this? Well, first, because I think he has done some good stuff, including helping Israel, taking out Maduro, attacking Iran along with Israel, defining sex for official purposes as biological sex rather than self-identification, reducing illegal immigration at the border (I am not, of course, approving of the heavy-handed and often injurious tactics of ICE), and trying to expand the use of mental institutions to reduce the privations suffered by homeless people who are mentally ill. Again, I am not saying that the net effect of all of Trump’s policies are good for America, as one can easily make the case otherwise—most notably in his changing a checks-and-balance Presidency into a quasi-dictatorship.
However, I don’t think that people’s opinions of policies should rest on an assessment of the person, but should be based on the policies themselves. It’s both divisive and irrational to refuse to admit that, if someone does something good, it’s really bad because the person is bad (in Trump’s case, he’s often called a “Nazi”, which is hyperbolic and inaccurate).
So, I’m asking readers to answer the question above. If you wish to add a caveat about disliking Trump as I have done above, you’re welcome to do so, but I’m not asking for harangues about the man, as I can read those everywhere on the Internet. (I can guarantee that this very post will lead me to be called a “right-winger,” just as my opposition to biological men being put in women’s prisons or participating in women’s sports has led to my being called a “transphobe”. More on that later.)
If you don’t think he’s ever done anything good, feel free to say that, too.
Food pyramid
I have been tussling online with various people who are still more or less OK with Trump as POTUS. They all say something like: “I don’t like his style or his personality; but he’s done X and Y and I like those, so I’m OK.”
And then I always want to ask them directly about: Militarizing cities, $TRUMP coin bribery scheme, threatening our allies, tariffs, the DOGE fiasco, etc. A few of them will actually answer my questions; but almost all of them duck the questions (wimps).
Anyway, this prompted me to write a (living) list of the things Trump has done that I like and don’t like, so it’s ready to hand for asking people.
I will list my “Pro” section here. I’ll leave off the “Con” section since you know them and it would make so long a comment that I would violate the Roolz.
Pros:
1. Controlled the southern border.
2. Brought some sanity back to protecting women’s single-sex domains like sports and prisons.
3. Struck Iran’s nuclear apparatus.
4. Aided Israel in neutering Iran and its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, The Houthis, etc.).
5. Support for Israel.
6. Took out a hated, incompetent dictator in Venezuela (Maduro). (I don’t like the “how” of how this was done; but it’s a mixed bag; some good.)
(EDIT: Jerry, I swear that I didn’t read your list in the original posting before putting my list in here. Once again, we are very closely aligned politically, which I already knew.)
My list is similar, Jim.
A lot of criticism of Trump is on what I’d call “aesthetic” or behavioral grounds.
He is the archetype of the New York a-hole.
My criticism are his lack of respect for our all important allies, the US dollar, and our national “trust.”
D.A.
NYC (Volunteer and donor to Hillary campaign, lifelong Dem).
Ah,Jim, I’m in the same boat. Same list as yours, same as Dr PCC(e).
One addition; made DEI bureaucracy toxic, as it should be.
Quite without meaning to, Trump gave us Mark Carney as PM, rather than P. Polievre. That part I’m happy with.
Beat me to it.
Me, too!
He’s also unintentionally increased Canadian unity to a remarkable extent, and prompted our government to seek alliances and economic opportunities elsewhere in the world.
Just because bad people sometimes do good things (often accidentally), that doesn’t excuse them from being bad people. For example, eugenics are a good thing unless perverted by a man like Hitler. it is good that Trump has restricted immigration, but the means he has employed are both criminal from a human rights perspective, and constitute treason because of his disregard of court rulings and long established democratic procedures. As he himself has said, the punishment for treason should be death!
Which court rulings has he disregarded?
The ones saying non-citizens have a right to due process.
Only about 1% of the Epstein files have been released, and are heavily redacted.
But otherwise, he hasn’t had to because the SC has mostly sided with him, and most lower court rulings against him have been stayed by appeals courts.
I think his administration disregarded a court ruling about turning around the planes en route to El Salvador, didn’t it?
I think it’s not only that bad people can, incidently (or accidently), do good things. Also bad people can do good things for bad reasons. E.g. Trump has helped Israel, but I certainly don’t think he has done so because he feels it’s the just thing to do. He just wants money and power.
–Highlighted the waste, fraud, and corruption related to government programs, and is pursuing miscreants
–Closed the wide-open border and is driving illegal aliens out of the country
–Shook NATO out of its dependence on the US and forced them to think about meeting their treaty obligations regarding defense spending
–Helped negotiate peace in multiple conflicts
–Supported Israel
–Attacked Iran’s nuclear program
–Arrested Maduro
–Dealing with the shadow tanker fleet
–Challenging China’s influence in Central and South America
–Revitalizing the US military, as evidenced by record enlistments
–Renewed emphasis on convential energy and energy sufficiency
I’m confused. From what I can tell, DrBryden has posted only twice on this thread, and the other one was only 6 words long. His comment’s on topic and he’s not attacking anyone – why is he in danger of running foul of the posting Roolz?
That was my error and Ive retracted my comment.
The added points are pretty good, especially the bit about getting other NATO members to step up a bit more in defense spending. But it appeared to me that that was inspired by Trump’s poor support of Ukraine.
I agree with some of these, but how can you be pleased with Trump’s new emphasis on fossil fuels?
And regarding your admiration for his actions to control China, his actions have actually done just the opposite (typical of a short-sighted and irrational leader). He has shown other countries that they cannot trust the US, neither economically nor politically, and this will drive many other nations closer to China, both economically and politically. We are already seeing this with Canada.
And this is bigger than Trump. Trump has shown the world that about half of Americans are fine with our government making irrational threats and blackmail and reprisals against our allies. I think this is permanent and will not soon be forgotten by Europe.
Trump is the worst President we have ever had. I worked in the mental health field for thirty years, mostly in-patient psych. He is piss poor protoplasm poorly put together. However, I am very glad he has done away with pennies. And I have always agreed with Jerry that trans-women should not play with non-trans women in sports.
.
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
I would strongly agree that defining sex for official purposes as biological sex has been a good thing. The HHS report on pediatric gender care supports that official view and is also worth mentioning as a good thing. Support for women in sports is also worth mentioning as part of this range of Trump policies that one can support while disagreeing with other Trump policies.
Without question, Trump undoing Biden’s work on replacing sex, a natural category, with gender or gender identity, is a positive move. It’s a bipartisan issue concerning which the current party of Democrats has dropped the ball, jumped the shark, and gotten on the last train to Crazytown.
I’m also relatively positive regarding his basic or original stance on the war in Gaza, immigration, and mental institutions. He then tries to institute his policies in the most distressing, crude, unhinged way he can — but let’s put that aside for now.
Well, PCC(E), I admit that I’m pretty loath to expose myself to the slings and arrows of other commenters, but what the heck–here goes!
I take issue with your approbation of “taking out Maduro.” No doubt he’s a bad actor, but he’s no Eichmann, IMHO. I ask, would the US be justified in taking out Erdogan? Or Orban? I think not, even though they are probably as bad as Maduro.
There are a few (!) bad actors in the world. How many of them should we “take out?”
Of course, Maduro was not assassinated. I don’t know why Erdogan or Orban would be a direct threat to US citizens.
How on earth can you say Erdogan and Orban are as bad as Maduro? They haven’t and are not destroying their countries. I cite the often mentioned fact that Venezuela, with its advantage of oil wealth, used to be the richest country in South America with a large prosperous middle class. Now it is the continent’s worst basket case. A huge portion of that decline happened under Maduro’s rule.
Taking out Maduro but leaving all the rest of his administration in charge doesn’t strike me as a “good thing.”
Apparently Delcy Rodriguez is prepared to work with Trump on oil extraction.
Maybe some good will come of this. But it’s certainly not obvious now.
Forcing Europe to take more responsibility for their own defense. The costs of which will cause a cascade of other adjustments which will be to Europe’s long-term good, such as modifying their energy as well as immigration policies. But it may be too late for them. I suspect Europe is in a long slow decline.
I’d like to think Trump’s made Democrats consider moderating their candidates, rejecting or not kowtowing to the Woke, so that we’ll get better candidates. I agree with Jerry’s list, too.
“Including:
– helping Israel
– taking out Maduro
– attacking Iran along with Israel
– reducing illegal immigration at the border
– defining sex for official purposes as biological sex rather than self-identification”
This is why the Democrats are so infuriating. The first 3 are things that are well within what we would have expected from Clinton/Gore era Democrats. The immigration issue came about only because of a recent, far left tilt into ridiculous “open borders” ideology. Even Obama-era Dems had sensible views on restricting immigration, policing illegals and securing the border.
And the last issue…I continue to be baffled by the Democrats. Yes, the Republicans should get credit for understanding that men and women are biologically different. Up until last Tuesday, your average 3 year old could have told you that. It’s almost like the entire trans movement was an elaborate sabotage of the Democratic Party perpetrated by right wingers.
It’s the own-goal to end all own-goals….
Up until last Tuesday, your average 3 year old could have told you that…
https://babylonbee.com/news/five-year-old-brought-in-to-explain-difference-between-boys-and-girls-to-supreme-court
I agree with getting rid of the penny. Although the implementation was not thought out (no surprise there).
He’s mentally ill, so he may do something catastrophic, and has come dangerously close.
I don’t think anything he’s done that’s possibly good comes close to benefiting America, not when he’s damaged our republic to the extent he and his cult have.
You seem to be misunderstanding the question. It’s pretty clear from what I said that I am asking for individual ACTS that are beneficial, not whether Trump has benefited America overall. If you think he’s done things that are possibly good, you should list them.
Yes. For us Mexicans. He has brought the Mexican government into line.
If we’re including Trump’s first term, then I must mention Operation Warp Speed, the development of COVID vaccines in an unprecedentedly short time.
Of course, that’s the one accomplishment that he never brags about.
That was a huge accomplishment that may have saved millions of lives.
The main good things Trump has done is reversing his policies and stated preferences whenever he receives sufficient pushback. Overall, he’s a terrible person and a terrible president.
Someone just mentioned eliminating minting of the penny. I agree. Another good thing was getting us out of an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, though like the penny, poorly thought out and like W Bush getting us out of Iraq, he left the mess for his successor to deal with.
Agree with our host’s list.
Other good things: Removing illegal aliens/immigrants, projecting our military and financial strenghts, clamping down of fraud and waste, testing the limits of the constitution, reveal the cult of MAGA, etc.
What’s not to like.. however, it was all done in terrible, unethical ways.
May I respectfully ask for examples of “clamping down on fraud and abuse”? Off the top of my head, I can only think of highly beneficial science and research programs being gutted and/or necessary agencies having so many employees forced out that they no longer have even enough employees to man the telephones.
My list of positives are:
1. Closing the border (though I’m not in favor of the wall that is cutting through highly sensitive habitat/wildlife corridors in areas that see little to no illegal crossing anyway).
2. Defining men and women in terms of biology.
3.Taking out Iran’s nukes.
4. Being a strong ally to Israel.
DOGE was a very good idea, who wouldn’t want to cut fraud and waste.. Again, almost all of ‘his’ ideas were done in terrible fashion.
We’re discussing positive things that the Orange Toddler did.. cutting science funding was a bad thing.
Tony: I misquoted you in my question. You said “fraud and waste”. Sorry. Also, after asking you that question I saw several people refer to his cutting out DEI/equity type programs and hiring policies which I do think were wasteful. Another wasteful thing I’d forgotten about was continuing to produce the penny.
We’re generally agreed on the good: the penny, two sexes, a strong border, support for Israel, Iran strike. He’s hampered by his lack of history and of diplomacy, his short attention span, his vindictiveness, his inconsistency. We the people will pay a price, a Trump tariff, on his words and actions. Watching Davos was like watching a B-grade horror film with Mark Carney as hero and Trump as the monster from the swamp!
In addition to things others have mentioned, I would add reducing regulations, supporting manufacturing, and making things more affordable by increasing supply.
I’m going to say it: The White House Ballroom is a Good Thing.
As always, the way it was done was terrible. But from what I’d read, it was really needed. We needed the space to host large state events, without dependency on the weather, and without having dignitaries in ballgowns and tuxedos line up for porta-potties outdoors. And it was funded by donors. No doubt with an expectation of returned favors, but that is the back-side of politics.
What is the point of listing the “good things” Trump may have done for the country? There has never been a malevolent figure in history who did only bad things. By this logic, one could also list things that Adolf Hitler did which are, taken in isolation, often cited as “positive”: the expansion of public infrastructure such as the Autobahn, early forms of animal-protection legislation, restrictions on animal experimentation, and even his personal promotion of vegetarianism. These facts are historically true and utterly irrelevant to any serious moral evaluation of the regime.
The same applies to other figures. Stalin oversaw industrialization and the defeat of Nazi Germany; Lenin expanded literacy and education. Yet none of this alters the fact that they were responsible for massive repression, violence, and the destruction of human lives on an enormous scale.
Donald Trump should have been jailed for attempting to overturn a democratic election. The fact that the United States was unable or unwilling to hold him legally accountable says a great deal about the current condition of its institutions. Moreover, his decision to pardon individuals involved in serious drug-trafficking offenses is far more consequential and damaging than any policy success one might selectively highlight.
The kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro was a violation of international law. It was not motivated by concern for democracy or human rights, but by a desire to control Venezuela’s oil reserves. Trump never contemplated similar actions against dictators he openly admired, such as Lukashenko of Belarus, because he is comfortable with authoritarian figures who align with his interests.
This is precisely why enumerating “good deeds” is a misleading exercise. It distracts from patterns of behavior, institutional damage, and moral failure. When someone consistently undermines democratic norms, violates international law, and shows contempt for accountability, pointing out what they did “nicely” is beside the point. Why insist on that framing at all?
I think I described the point of my question. If you want to rant and not answer it, then go elsewhere, which you’ll have to do from now on. As the Roolz say, don’t tell me what I can or cannot post.
If you’ve read this site, you’ll see that I’ve heaped plenty of opprobrium on Trump. Enumerating good deeds tells us which deeds should be considered good, even if enacted by someone you don’t like. Several of those deeds would not have been done by Kamala Harris.
This is also a way to find out what the readers here consider directions for the country to go in that are good, and thus perhaps to give Democrats an idea of what policies they should be promoting.
See ya!
I agree. This is not very productive. I’m on the point of unsubscribing. If I could only figure out how (I’ve looked but can’t find it.)
If you check the box that notifies you that someone has replied to your comment you receive an email, correct? In that email is a link to unsubscribe. It’s just below the link you hit to read the replies.
The WordPress site subscription management page is at: https://wordpress.com/reader/subscriptions
Well, I don’t have any difficulty recognizing that the Orange Toddler’s done good things, whether intentional or not. It IS possible for a tyrant to do something right, after all. A broken clock is right twice a day. That’s how I see the question posed by Dr PCCe and I’m not distracted in the slightest from the disaster of this presidency and I do find this discussion productive. It helps me feel like all is not lost, and in these times, that helps. If it distracts you and seems pointless, then don’t engage. Go do something else. It’s really that easy.
The man is a chaos engine. Something good might happen on a random basis. It is never because there’s an intent to improve life on the planet that doesn’t coincide with his immediate self interest.
That is not an answer to the question, though. As I said above, learning what liberal readers consider “good” can tell us what Democrats should be promoting in the next election.
You listed “good things” in the original post. I’m fine with your list, mostly. But I don’t find the exercise invigorating. As others have pointed out, one can list good and bad things done by any human you choose.
If the purpose is to determine what Democrats should promote in the election(s) coming up then I think that should be the question. Framing it in terms of listing the Orange Menace’s “good things” contributes to that much. In fact it distracts from what I think is the most important issue, the American descent into fascism.
+mucho
Trump has done lots of good things, as others have stated, taking on the border/immigration, sex not gender, challenging DEI, anti-Hamas, shining a light on NGOs.
I only wish he had half the skills/personality of Obama, who charmingly installed so many of those destructive policies. And I wish the changes were codified rather than through EOs.
I wish he also had half the capacity for empathy, shame, and other social emotions as an average human being.
I agree to some extent on the two sexes point, but I sympathize with trans people who want to have a passport that allows them to travel in the gender that they have adopted. Hard to imagine the pain of a committed trans woman or man, forced to travel as the gender that they have abandoned, sometimes with irreversible surgery.
Yes,you make a good point, and one I may have discussed before. I still think birth sex should be on the passport, but there can be some indication (say a letter T) to indicate that the individual is transgender. But I have not finalized my thinking on this point.
Ditching the penny. Far as I’m concerned, he could eliminate the $1 bill, too.
And OK, support for Israel. But did he go before the public and make the case for supporting Israel? AFAIK, no. No surprise there – he’s incapable of making a cogent argument even when there’s a pretty easy one to be made.
You beat me to the penny!
Energy realism and full support for AI are both good in my view. Support for nuclear energy is good.
His anti-crime initiatives have probably saved many black lives, but no one will ever give him credit for that.
Europe is gradually Islamizing. Trump is trying to slap some sense into our allies on this issue. I regard that as good.
Yes. He has done some good things, essentially along the lines that you outline. He has also done some not-so-good things (= bad things). I will continue to evaluate the administration policy by policy and action by action. Being such an enigmatic figure, it can be difficult to avoid conflating Trump’s policies with his person.
I fail to see randomness and chaos as enigmatic. It’s not possible to predict specific outcomes, but the patterns are well-understood. No mystery there.
I appreciate his efforts to diminish the legitimacy of DEI, his validation of Israel’s right to name its own capital city (what a concept!) and the subsequent transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and his support of Netanyahu.
I applaud his economic and military actions against Iran (and hope they will continue), as well as his support for the rights of biological women and the parents of gender-questioning children.
Would like to add a more vibe-type good: political bureaucrats, in many other countries (Davos Germany comes to mind) seem to be more sensitive to real outcomes and more critical of the burdened processes that were wrongly (at times) used as their proxies.
HA! Might I respectfully suggest a little less Facebook and a little more twitter/X?
They’re different, but I think you’re comfortable on Facebook (familiar people, friends, etc.)?
best,
D.A.
NYC
https://x.com/DavidandersonJd
@DavidandersonJd
As a European, I would have to list his honesty in foreign policy. US foreign policy has been extractive for a long time and Trump is unwilling (or incapable) to mask it like his predecessors.
Trump (or rather, I suspect, his team) have done a lot of good in trying to overturn DEI mandates throughout government and replace them with merit-based hiring. The Democrat-led mandates requiring “equity” (proportional representation in hiring for all favoured identities, or even above-proportional hiring), regardless of merit, was and is an ongoing disaster, given that lots of DEI hires are now in post.
Another example is attemping to negate the “differential impact” interpretation of the Civil Rights Act. This interpretation (deriving from government dictats and court rulings, rather than actual law) says that if any barrier (such as a test for competence for school teachers) is failed at different rates by different racial groups (which of course it will be), then that barrier is presumed to be discriminatory and must be removed (or at least the burden of proof is then on the employer to show that it is absolutely necessary). Again, this obviates merit in hiring and means that many incompetent people get hired.
Other good things that Trump and his team have done (or at least, that are good in principle, even though Trump goes about them in a severely sub-optimal way) include supporting free speech, both in the US and worldwide (trying to counter EU censorship of X for example), and trying to promote viewpoint diversity in universities.
A lot of people have mentioned the biological sex item, which I would agree with if the “biology” part was correct. Trump did not do it for reasons of biology. He did it to pander to his religious base who define sex in terms of two sexes … Adam and Eve as explained in that font of truth, the Bible. I would also question whether many of the suggestions are actually due to “policies.”
You have hammered the nail. Trump cannot afford to upset his religious base.
Also applies to his support for Israel: pandering to the Evangelicals and their end-times fantasies.
There are quite a lot of people who are advising Trump and formulating policy, and while some may only care about the religious base, others do indeed care about biology. Many of the Executive Orders issued by Trump are quite astute and well written (which I do not attribute to Trump himself).
Nevertheless, whatever the motivations of the Orange Toddler, a discussion –any discussion– about biological sex is possible now. In the Biden era, it was not. That is a good thing, in my estimation.
“Trump did not do it for reasons of biology. He did it to pander to his religious base…”
But he did commission the HHS Report on Gender Dysphoria, and most of the authors of that report were liberals.
As a politically homeless American, lifelong leftist and feminist, I despise Trump, his megalomania, his dementia or other mental illness, and his general sleaziness. So I can’t believe that I agree with him on a few things.
First is his endorsement of biology over trans ideology. However, I don’t think he gives a rat’s ass about women and our rights. I think he’s doing this to energize his base and pwn the libs. So the right thing for the wrong reasons.
Second is his removal of DIE. I do think he’s concerned about possible discrimination against white heterosexual men, but.again, much.of.this is to pwn the libs.
Eliminating the penny is long overdue. They’re a nuisance.
Supporting Israel is good, but I don’t think he cares about Israelis or other Jews. Again, energizing his base.
I think he only cares about enriching himself, glorifying himself, and making himself a pseudo dictator.
First, thank you Dr. Coyne, for giving me an opportunity to think objectively about the possibly temporary positive things our disruptor-in-chief has set in motion. In addition to or echoing some of the other things mentioned, here are a few:
1. Supporting Israel and strongly opposing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism in publically funded institutions in this country;
2. Reversing the Biden required march of the DEI philosophy in hiring and promotions in federally funded institutions and contracts and replacing the equity philosophy with equality as a goal;
3. Reversing the required Biden/Obama star chamber oriented sexual assault procedures in higher ed;
4. Reducing the total federally funded loan burden students can assume;
5. Pressuring American companies to return more of their manufacturing business to our country; and
6. Disrupting a complacent federal government apparatus, an effort that upended the lives of many good and decent public servants but was probably necessary to effect a change to federal culture.
Any or all of these new directions can be reversed or modified by the next administration. We are living in interesting times.
I agree with the comments that just because he did a few good things, this absolves him of all the bad things. Overall, his approach of doing anything only if there is something in it for him is the major problem.
A self centered, barely literate, sociopathic conman did a few things people agreed with, but why wasn’t it obvious to people that this person is totally unqualified and unsuited to be President.
The best thing he has done is demonstrate the serious fundamental problems with the US constitution and system of government.
And, IMO, fundamental structural problems with making democracies persist. We have had a very good run….
Trump is the worst, most racist, most dishonest, most selfish, most corrupt, least educated, least patriotic, and crudest president in the history of the country. What he’s done that’s good is by accident or by someone else in his administration. Operation Warp Speed (Covid vaccine) was excellent but no way could have been his idea. He’s credited with “securing the border,” but Biden did that. Most of the damage to Iran was caused by Israel. The food pyramid is at best mixed but almost everything RFK has done has been disastrous. Maduro is a pig but kidnapping him and his wife is extralegal and not based on any coherent policy. It doesn’t produce regime change in Venezuela and results in in the US–Trump?–stealing Venezuela’s oil. Maybe getting NATO to contribute more to defense budgets was Trump’s idea and good. But I can’t think of anything else.
After Trump, DEI and “wokeism” are unlikely to rebound. I believe they have been so damaging that I regard their decline as one of Trump’s greatest accomplishments.
I hope you’re right about wokeness. I rather expect another cycle of Trump-like revenge, this time by the “Progressives” should they prevail. Mandami’s current status as the Dems’ Great Hope is a worry.
Despite the shame of Jan. 6, Trump defeated the useless Kamala and knuckleheaded Walz by running on the 80 side of 80/20 issues such as border control and immigration law enforcement, no men in women’s sports or facilities, no racial discrimination in hiring or university admissions, support for Israel against Islamist barbarians, etc. Those are some of the good things Trump has done (I would add blocking Islamic immigration to the USA as another one). I never voted for Trump but at this point at least – who knows about the future given his volatility – I am glad he defeated Kamala/Walz.
I see that some commentators here are decrying the “militarization” of immigration law enforcement in Minneapolis. I see it as similar to the “militarization” of federal desegregation orders in the South which was also resisted by racist locals and led to much violence. If Walz and mayor Frey had simply assisted with the deportations rather than calling for mass resistance, the current violence would not have occurred. I still don’t know why so many residents of Minneapolis seem so keen to put their lives on the line to protect Somali fraudsters and illegal immigrants in their city. It is the same type of derangement that calls for men who feel they are women to be allowed to compete against women in sports, and be put in women’s prisons – even men who raped women.
It’s hard to not be exasperated with Trump and to disregard everything he does. But I have noticed over the years that those I vilified have come through with good programs. Nixon started the EPA and he was close to starting universal child care. And on the other hand, I voted for Biden and his way of dealing with the war in Ukraine was weak and ineffective when if it had been done right could have made a difference. Along with the disaster at the border , etc. He did things that looked good and virtuous but weren’t. Trump doesn’t care about looking virtuous. He gave Venezuelans hope when nobody else would. He did it for the oil? Venezuelans are just fine with that. They saw no way to be free of Maduro till he came along.
I support him or any Democrat or Republican who is not in favor of DEI, open borders, and most things woke.
Jerry, I think banning Eduard Bardu (#22) was too harsh. I didn’t interpret his words as telling you what to write: he expressed the opinion that listing Ihe accomplishments of Orange Toddler (a tag from one of the commentators, it cracked me up) was irrelevant in face of his enormities. I disagree, but he made some good, coherent points. Please reconsider.
Cheers.
I think the most important benefit is that the world now realizes that trust in America as the “good” Great Power was misplaced. Power reveals; in this case it revealed the real motives, which are to dominate and subjugate countries, willing or unwilling.
I find your comment really interesting. It’s similar to what FX Kober said (#32). You’ve both found the silver lining in Trump’s crappiness. If the cat was ever really in the bag, it’s out now.
Not addressing the question, but I agree with our host that the constant harping on Trump and his deeds is depressing.
This morning I went for a walk in a nice residential neighborhood, and crossed paths with a well-dressed older man, walking his cute dog. I looked up to give a good morning nod when I was astonished to see a F*** Trump hat atop his head. How could he possibly think that’s a good idea?
I wanted to say Sir, remember yourself!
Probably a reaction vs. all the damn MAGA hats. In Greenland they have them, but subtitled Make America Go Away .
That’s funny!
It was the vulgarity that shocked me. It’s not a word my friends and family use casually, and walking around with that on your head in the middle of the day, in a family neighborhood near schools, seems like out of control anger.
I can’t approve of any of the foreign policy, it’s just too ill-thought-out.
Much happier with immigration restrictions and pushback against unmeritocratic DEI.
I agree with Jerry’s list.
As a committed TERF, I am of course very pleased about Trump’s pushback against gender nonsense. But I want to highlight this one:
“trying to expand the use of mental institutions to reduce the privations suffered by homeless people who are mentally ill”
I live in a low-income urban neighborhood with lots of homeless people. The standard answers to homelessness among leftists involve “treatment” for drug and alcohol addiction, and housing. But rehab centers don’t have great success rates — especially when people are forced into them — and a person with severe, untreated mental illness or out-of-control addiction may not be willing, or able, to maintain a stable residence.
I blame the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1970s for much of the homeless crisis. Of course we don’t want to go back to the cold, impersonal “warehousing” of troublesome people. But I encounter people nearly every day who cannot function normally and need care. Dumping people into the streets to fend for themselves as best they could was not the enlightened blow for liberty proponents like Thomas Szasz imagined it to be.
I agree with the host on everything, but for the thing I find as a long term positive is giving Europe a good wakeup kick in the ass.
If Europe needed awakening, P*tin did that well before Orange Julius returned to the stage.
I agree with the list given so far. I tried not to duplicate unless there was more to add, such as how damn good the new food guide is. Here’s a few top-of-the-head, in addition to those mentioned:
-has just brought the best food guide since the government started doing it. Really the only one not designed for corporate interests.
-good policy changes on childhood recommended vaccines, and stopped recommending the Covid vaccine for kids.
-has clarified some of the COVID 19 nonsense that did not work
-has spurred on other NATO countries to increase defence spending. It’s about damn time someone did (and I’m in one of them).
-to elaborate on the sex issue you raised…he’s working to get men out of women’s sports/washrooms/change rooms.
-is trying to put a stop to the DEI crap…hiring, what’s taught in schools, etc.
-stopped flying virtue signalling flags on US government buildings…now US flags only. May be petty but why was it allowed in the first place?
-allowing/mandating for quotes to be given before medical procedures so people can price shop.
-brought in Most-favoured-nation pricing for pharmaceuticals to lower the price for Americans.
-offered the jobs back to those in the military who were fired for refusing the covid vaccine.
I do find it bizarre that some would find it too painful to even consider anything good that he or his team have done. Good on you for bringing this up Jerry.
Good things Donald Trump has done include:
– ending the war in Gaza and establishing at least a framework for maintaining peace there;
– crippling Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon;
– generally supporting Israel and opposing anti-Semitism both internationally and inside the US;
– getting men out of women’s sports and establishing clearly that the definition of sex is based on biology;
– generally undermining or eliminating the whole DEI and ESG monolith and returning to merit-based appointments and traditional economic metrics;
– exerting effective pressure to get European leaders to increase their defence spending substantially and recognise that they need to take greater responsibility for defending themselves;
– effectively controlling immigration and defending the borders of the United States;
– being unafraid to tell European leaders frankly that the Islamisation of Europe represents a fundamental threat to European culture and civilisation;
– recognising that the hollowing out of America’s manufacturing and mining capacity constitutes a major risk to its security and future wealth, and taking meaningful action to re-shore manufacturing and re-establish mining infrastructure;
– removing Maduro from power, which effectively eliminates a substantial Russian and Chinese toehold in the Western hemisphere.
I disagree with commentators who suggest that Trump is somehow mentally ill, unstable or insane. This is just his negotiating strategy and it works. In game theory, if you are playing the chicken game and can convince your opponent that there is a chance that you are actually insane, this greatly increases your chance of winning the game. Trump has shown repeatedly that he is a master of this approach, and, for some reason, most observers don’t seem to be able to recognise what he is doing.
I agree with Jerry’s list and much else above. I would add two:
1) the overarching goals of DOGE (minus a bit of the “move fast and break things” ethos). Many government programs are ripe with fraud, waste, self-dealing, revolving-door policy perversions, backscratching, and laundered kickbacks into the political system. Some programs simply internationalize domestic politics. Much in USAID, for instance, was used by the “progressive” wing to export the Woke gospel—by persuasion or coercion (and also contributed to #2 below). And contrary to the catastrophizing at the time, most of the “save starving babies” and other such humanitarian programs were simply shifted to the State Department rather than eliminated.
2) dropping the sanctimonious BS that has long characterized our foreign policy while also walking back American hegemony abroad: it was never moral, wise, nor financially sustainable to pursue a unipolar world after the USSR collapsed.
To those who cannot divorce their moral or partisan lens from Jerry’s exercise, please reconsider. Imagine your military planners and strategists, when asked what the Russian and Chinese militaries do well, recoiling in disgust: “How dare you? What is the point? Just because they might stumble on some effective things doesn’t change the fact that they are evil and are enemies. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.” Now ask where the US military and other NATO members are overmatched or vulnerable: “Do you hate America and its allies? Are you a closet totalitarian? A communist? I can’t even comprehend this defeatism—nobody is as good as we are.”
The widespread adoption of a Schmittian friend/enemy distinction in domestic politics will not end well.
Kudos to Jerry for trying to break people out of that trap.
I read the thread and am trying to think of anything not mentioned. I think he might be able to get credit for reducing fentanyl deaths in the US which appears to be to be decreasing. This is the most insidious drug ever because it’s so potent (and easily concealed) and so addictive and so easily overdosed and can be spiked into anything that I think redefining it as “poisoning Americans” is a legitimate designation to bring this emergency to the fore. I’m not endorsing striking drug cartel boats militarily (though they must surely be interdicted if possible which might be a game of whack-a-mole) and unsure of the efficacy of a war on drugs generally but hope that his threats of death to fentanyl makers and distributors is working. Frankly, if your life choice is to make that drug (allowing even for some others like cocaine which I’ve never done so don’t think I’m an advocate) then maybe the threat of blowing up your operation or your own govt looking for you is a good thing. Overt threats and holding exporting countries responsible is a good faith attempt.
I thought in Trump’s first term that blowing up Syria’s airstrip with a few dozen cruise missiles to deter Assad from using poison gas attacks on his own people was a brilliant threat and use of force stating ‘do that again and you’re next’. He didn’t and he couldn’t really retaliate against the US.
Living in the UK I will not comment on policies relating just to the USA.
From a UK/European perspective suggesting an increase in defence spending is a clear plus but there is always the problem of taking the money from somewhere else. Highlighting problems with uncontrolled immigration is no bad thing.
The manner of Trump’s dealing with other leaders is insulting. His suggestion that other NATO troops did little in Afghanistan being an example. Will rejection of this claim by Sir KS lead to selective tariffs?
Do Americans want other nations to respect them or fear them?
At the risk of violating the Roolz, I agree with PCC(e)
I find many of the comments frustrating. The man is a swindling, egomaniacal bully with no respect for the constitution or the rule of law. His conduct should not be subject to approval because you like a particular result. He is a vulgar lout and he depends upon the support of millions of other vulgar louts, so he will pander to them as he sees fit. So, you don’t like DEI, therefore his threatening to cut research funding to universities who don’t drop DEI initiatives is okay? Really? Have you thought about what this opens the door to? If enough of his rabble makes enough noise, he might decide that the teaching of evolution undermines America’s moral fiber and universities that continue to teach it will face funding cuts. You think he’s above such a stunt? He isn’t. He just threatened to slap tariffs on countries that don’t support his stance on Greenland. Everything is transactional with him. Tariffs might (at least in his mind) help our economy, but they can also be a cudgel to beat other nations into submission on any other particular question. He does this shit all the time and gets away with it. Companies are falling all over themselves to give him money because they want mergers or cutouts that he can allow or prohibit as he sees fit. This is how banana republic dictatorships operate and he’s just fine with that. He sees our department of justice as his personal machine for vengeance. Do you see where this leads? Or is it okay as long as he’s threatening the legal rights of people you don’t like? It’s a simple matter of principle: either a president can be a dictator, or he can’t. Either he can, at his own whim, have people persecuted or arrested or deported, or he can’t. He either abides by the constitution or he doesn’t. You have to judge not just what he has “accomplished”, but also how he accomplished it. And he is also establishing precedent. A future president can now use the same tactics to do shit you really hate, but how much can you bitch? You let the monster out of the box. He, or the next guy, is now in a position to put a steaming plate of shit in front of you and hand you a spoon. Bon appetit.