Why or why not?

Tariffs, lol.

Not a good president. He's got some good points, but not enough to make him a good president. I personally believe that the age of having "great" presidents ended with Reagan, with Bill Clinton being the closest thing we've had to a "great" ever since. I have "great" in quotations because all is subjective, and a certain president's success or ability to stand out in history is dependent on the events and happenings of the times during their respective offices.

Edited 4/21/2018 05:38:45

What if you define 'good' as 'orange'?

THE LAST GOOD PRESIDENT WAS GOOD OL' WHEELIE MCNOELCTIONEELIE


FUCK THIS ORANGE DOOOOOUCHHHEEEE

Is Noorsooltan Nazarbayev a good president, more importantly.

I got your back Cata, don't worry. The forums aren't turning U.S.-Americentrist on my watch.

Hiel Orbán !

The term "good" is subjective so lets define it.

1. A massive foreign policy success.
2. Strong economy over their entire term
3. Supporting bi-partisan social issues

A president must have 2 of these 3 things to be good because having all three would be "great".

When I talk about foreign policy success's I am talking about winning major wars like the Revolutionary, Mexican, Civil, Spanish, ect and vastly increasing the power of the USA like the Louisiana Purchase, Marshall Plan, Monroe Doctrine, Bretton Woods, or founding NATO.

Trump simply turned the US consulate in Jerusalem into an Embassy, defeated ISIS, threw a few missiles into Syria, has agreed to meet with North Korea, and pulled out of Paris. All are successes but nothing that historians will point to as massive world moments unless Trump can permanently denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.

So far the economy is strong so if Trump keeps it up then he will win in this category.

Trump has stalled on national Marijuana legalization, just like Obama, which has bi-partisan support.

Trump has done nothing wrong but he also hasn't done enough to be called a "good" president, yet.

Edited 4/21/2018 16:43:40

Why is your standard for foreign policy a "massive success" which implies a turning point in favor of the US as geopower but the other two standards are more regulatory and imply progress without paradigm shift? Interesting contrivance because the foreign policy standard is the one which you argue Trump doesn't meet to be a "good" president.

xi > duterte > trump

He made an agreement with North Korea about stopping intercontinental missle testing, so in that way he is a 'good' president. There are other actions that I liked him doing but others that I have completely opposite options of (such as revoking all documents/laws about climate change and global warming - he did this for businesses to get more profit).

neoliberals like the climate change narrative because they can push intolerable rules on US industry while multinationals expand into the 3rd world labor market. with profits from oversees multinationals can prop up the government to pay for their safety net for the unemployed US population which their policies created.

since we have seen how governments deal with climate change, doing nothing as a Western government seems to be the ideal position you would want your government to have. for the neoliberals climate change is just an opportunity to expand their welfare model while outsourcing pollution to the third world. US industry tends to be more sophisticated because of some of the regulations (not the overzealous ones) plus innovation comes out of the West. Even if the government just ignored climate change companies in the US could become more efficient anyway and competitive markets in the US would lead to more climate friendly industry.

it's literally better to just have a government that ignores climate change even if you believe in climate change unless you can find a political alternative to the neoliberal faction. you won't.

@Wulfhere That is a very good point. I guess because international politics are complex and constantly changing and only the bhttps://www.warzone.com/Forum/302812-donald-trump-good-president#ig moments stick out as anything of importance.

Trumps foreign policy aside from Syria has been reformative. The Syria strike was a massive blunder but elements of it are complimentary to Trump: the calling of Russia's bluff, the strikes limited more propagandistic rather than tactical effect. This compounded with DPRK and China characterized Trump as a man with balls something that puts him ahead of the presidents since Reagan. His madman strategy has for the time solidified the perception of American global hegemony. All US enemies backed down or proved ineffective when faced with arms. Contrast Trump with the incompetent foreign policies of Bush and Obama and you have something sticks out by your own criteria.

neoliberals like the climate change narrative because

okay so why do scientists like the climate change narrative

okay so why do scientists like the climate change narrative

Scientists have this narrative that revolves about the truth as revealed by the methods of science. It seems naive to say so, but not everything revolves about narratives regarding political power.

>tfw neo-nazis are too stupid to understand this.
Why am I not surprised.
People who deny climate change are either simple minded politicians or nuts who think they've cracked the reptilian plot.

I already highlighted why the neoliberal platform is actually bad for the environment. You will have to the read the entire paragraph I wrote possibly multiple times.

Non-sequitur from Ox. If he had a single firing neuron he would realize I'm not saying the climate change narrative is true or not.

>NEO GNATZEES ARE JUST STUPID
this is some intellectual territory I don't think I'm equipped to traverse

Padraig:

Science operates on the mechanical level and discovers FACTS about nature but the TRUTH belongs to the realm of philosophy and theology. It is through POLITICS that ethical systems informed by philosophically derived principles and fortified by the scientific method are efficacious. Truth to power which is the ultimate concern holds politics in higher esteem than science. Hence my agnosticism on the matter of climate change and my skepticism of the neoliberal agenda.

Wulfhere,

Science is in a certain way a matter of truth with a lower case "t". Although there is an implicit understanding amongst scientists of the underpinning that notions, regarding how we know things and what can be know, have for what scientists do. The science (knowledge or branch of philosophy) of Epistemology is in a real way a day to day concern. The folks with graduate degrees in the hard sciences hold a doctorate in natural philosophy. The use of the word philosophy is not an idle one. In a real way they are philosophers. As such they very much are concerned with the same sort of thing that other philosophers are. They are concerned with a their particular branches of philosophy. (Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Logic, Epistemology, Causality, Mind, Etc.)

It is only fair to quote Richard Feynman on the subject:

"Philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds."

In addition to being a Noble Laureate, Feynman was a wise ass. Which means he is the perfect person to quote here.

Donnie said on Fox and Friends that he gives his Presidency an A+.