• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump an Existential Threat to the U.S.? Pros and Cons

Luckyone said:
Biden is running mostly on the idea that Trump is an existential threat to the U.S. and that the most important thing is to get him out of office and replace him with Biden or anyone else not called Trump.

Below are two opinion pieces, one that states that he is not an existential threat and one that says he will make the U.S. into a second tier power by 2030.

Con:



Pro:



Either way, Trump has been a catalyst and whichever way you think, Trump is making changes to our Constitutional Republic that are going to change who we are fundamentally.

Is this what you want?
Click to expand...

The pro list is all accurate.

The con list is a distortion of what is happening. For decades now, the USA has submitted itself to foreign entities who absolutely do not have the best interests of America and Americans in mind or at heart. We have accepted manipulation of our currency, bad trade deals, and unfair apportionment of responsibility with other nations and world organizations.

President Trump has been more hands on in dealing with the gross imbalances and even compromises of our security than any President in my lifetime. He is insisting that America get a reasonable deal in international trade, that other countries pay their proportionate fair share in mutual alliances such as NATO, and he will not subject the USA to international accords in which we get the worst end of the deals.

President Trump is not changing who we are as a constitutional republic. He is restoring what we are intended to be as a constitutional republic.
 
ocean515 said:
Well said.

Exactly correct.

Would an isolationist work so hard to develop trade agreements with other Nations?

The intellectual detachment being confirmed by those making "isolationist" claims is amazing.

Critical thinking skills must be a disqualifier for membership in the New Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Leftists have been bombarded by lies so much they believe them. Just watch fake news and regurgitate it on DP. That's how the left operates.
 
Luckyone said:
Biden is running mostly on the idea that Trump is an existential threat to the U.S. and that the most important thing is to get him out of office and replace him with Biden or anyone else not called Trump.

Below are two opinion pieces, one that states that he is not an existential threat and one that says he will make the U.S. into a second tier power by 2030.

Con:



Pro:



Either way, Trump has been a catalyst and whichever way you think, Trump is making changes to our Constitutional Republic that are going to change who we are fundamentally.

Is this what you want?
Click to expand...

Personally, the biggest threat is the ultra high partisanship and the polarization that the two parties have thrust on America. The idea of cooperation, compromise, working with each other whenever possible has been thrown out the window in an attempt by both sides to destroy the other no matter what the cost to the nation or even if this country gets destroyed in the process.
 
Mycroft said:
Trump doesn't have an isolationist mentality. He is perfectly willing to enter into agreements with other countries. He is perfectly willing to build relationships with other countries.

What he will NOT do is make the US dependent upon other countries. He will not enter into agreements that are detrimental to the US...that are of no benefit to the US.

Trump doesn't want the US to be an island, but he will not allow the US to be subject to the will of another country or a group of people.

btw, you speak of "the way the world operates". Perhaps you don't realize that up till now, the globalists have determined the way the world operates. Trump is single handedly changing how the world operates.
Click to expand...
Trump gives lip service to ”cooperating” with other countries. He lies to, attacks, and attempts to strong-arm our allies and others. That is not cooperating. The only folks Trump actually cooperates with are the dictators and despots of the world.

Trump does not concern himself with win-win negotiations. That’s never been his style (which has probably contributed to his many bankruptcies, over 3,500 lawsuits and judgments against him). He’s totally happy with a win-lose strategy as long as he’s on the win side. The problem with that is there is always a price to pay later, but he doesn’t give a **** because he’ll be out of office by then.

And you are very seriously deluding yourself if you truly believe that Donald Trump has the intelligence and/or foresight to squash globalization. That is pure fantasy.
 
ocean515 said:
Well said.

Exactly correct.

Would an isolationist work so hard to develop trade agreements with other Nations?

The intellectual detachment being confirmed by those making "isolationist" claims is amazing.

Critical thinking skills must be a disqualifier for membership in the New Democratic Party.
Click to expand...
Another delusional Trumpster.:roll:

You think the new USMCA is a great deal? Nonsense. Trump is looking out for Trump, as always. Just like his “beautiful tax plan”.

Pfft ...
 
Helix said:
Let's hope that the idiot doesn't get to be a wartime president.
Click to expand...

Yes, destroying ISIS was completely contrary to US foreign military policy that prohibits victory in favor of perpetual war.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Trump gives lip service to ”cooperating” with other countries. He lies to, attacks, and attempts to strong-arm our allies and others. That is not cooperating. The only folks Trump actually cooperates with are the dictators and despots of the world.

Trump does not concern himself with win-win negotiations. That’s never been his style (which has probably contributed to his many bankruptcies, over 3,500 lawsuits and judgments against him). He’s totally happy with a win-lose strategy as long as he’s on the win side. The problem with that is there is always a price to pay later, but he doesn’t give a **** because he’ll be out of office by then.

And you are very seriously deluding yourself if you truly believe that Donald Trump has the intelligence and/or foresight to squash globalization. That is pure fantasy.
Click to expand...

At least you admit you are on the side of our economic competitors. That's refreshing. Most Democrats deny it.
 
vanceen said:
Can you please specify what changes Trump has made to our Constitutional Republic?

Because as I see it, he has done next to nothing he's actually tried to do, and even less of what he promised (off the cuff and otherwise). I think it reflects well on our system that we can have such an incompetent for President without much significant damage at all.
Click to expand...

One of the changes that has occurred is that the House now has to use the courts to do its Constitutional duties of being a check and balance to the executive branch, meaning that time is being wasted. In addition, using the courts does open the door for decisions that go against the Constitution occurring. Simply stated, he has made the checks and balances that our forefathers created much more difficult to institute.
 
joko104 said:
At least you admit you are on the side of our economic competitors. That's refreshing. Most Democrats deny it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not surprising you read it that way.:roll:
 
AlbqOwl said:
The pro list is all accurate.

The con list is a distortion of what is happening. For decades now, the USA has submitted itself to foreign entities who absolutely do not have the best interests of America and Americans in mind or at heart. We have accepted manipulation of our currency, bad trade deals, and unfair apportionment of responsibility with other nations and world organizations.

President Trump has been more hands on in dealing with the gross imbalances and even compromises of our security than any President in my lifetime. He is insisting that America get a reasonable deal in international trade, that other countries pay their proportionate fair share in mutual alliances such as NATO, and he will not subject the USA to international accords in which we get the worst end of the deals.

President Trump is not changing who we are as a constitutional republic. He is restoring what we are intended to be as a constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

Nonetheless, the decisions that Trump has made, especially the Trade War, has not worked so far and has already cost us over $45 billion and has caused many farmers to lose money and even go bankrupt. Bottom line is that there have not been any positives from it, no matter what the intentions are.
 
Perotista said:
Personally, the biggest threat is the ultra high partisanship and the polarization that the two parties have thrust on America. The idea of cooperation, compromise, working with each other whenever possible has been thrown out the window in an attempt by both sides to destroy the other no matter what the cost to the nation or even if this country gets destroyed in the process.
Click to expand...

That is true but then again the partisanship started when Obama took office given that the right did not want to work with a Black man and it has gotten worse with Trump because he is only president to his base. With him it is "bend over and take it" with the other side and no compromise possible. Bipartisanship can never work if one side is a bully.
 
Luckyone said:
One of the changes that has occurred is that the House now has to use the courts to do its Constitutional duties of being a check and balance to the executive branch, meaning that time is being wasted. In addition, using the courts does open the door for decisions that go against the Constitution occurring. Simply stated, he has made the checks and balances that our forefathers created much more difficult to institute.
Click to expand...

I disagree.

The use of the courts was always there in the Constitution, and this is certainly not the first time the courts have been involved in disputes between the President and Congress.

Also the use of the courts does not "open the door" to unconstitutional decisions any more than they were already open. The courts exist to adjudicate disputes about what is constitutional, and they have done so many times. They are not infallible, but neither are the President nor Congress. Nothing has changed with regard to the risk of unconstitutional decisions.

Trump has done nothing to checks and balances except to bring them into play more often than they have been in the past through frivolous claims of privilege and "emergency" powers; and he has lost every time. Checks and balances are exactly what they have always been. Which was my point.

We'll survive Trump. Hysteria about "existential threats" is more likely to lead to unconstitutional maneuvers than Trump's shadow-boxing.
 
Luckyone said:
That is true but then again the partisanship started when Obama took office given that the right did not want to work with a Black man and it has gotten worse with Trump because he is only president to his base. With him it is "bend over and take it" with the other side and no compromise possible. Bipartisanship can never work if one side is a bully.
Click to expand...

If you think partisanshiip started when Obama took office, you need a longer view of history. It's always been around, but the current ridiculous situation started with Clinton's impeachment. The Democrats vowed revenge, and it's been tit for tat ever since, gradually getting worse.
 
Slavister said:
None of these you will accept with your blinders on.
Click to expand...

Yes. I am suspicious of unsupported assertions.


That you just did twice in a row.

Again you did not specify or support any of them.
 
Luckyone said:
Nonetheless, the decisions that Trump has made, especially the Trade War, has not worked so far and has already cost us over $45 billion and has caused many farmers to lose money and even go bankrupt. Bottom line is that there have not been any positives from it, no matter what the intentions are.
Click to expand...

I see lots of positives. I am so sorry that you don't.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, destroying ISIS was completely contrary to US foreign military policy that prohibits victory in favor of perpetual war.
Click to expand...

If he actually ends the perpetual war in Afghanistan, I'll support that. However, I definitely don't trust his judgment when it comes to choosing or fighting new wars, as he is a complete idiot.
 
vanceen said:
If you think partisanshiip started when Obama took office, you need a longer view of history. It's always been around, but the current ridiculous situation started with Clinton's impeachment. The Democrats vowed revenge, and it's been tit for tat ever since, gradually getting worse.
Click to expand...

It actually started with Watergate. While not defending the Nixon Administration in any way re that--what was done was inexcusable--the side effect was impressing on Democrats that impeachment or the threat of impeachment was an effective tool in punishing their opponents. So we have seen them considering that in every GOP administration since.

It was pretty bad during the Reagan Administration. Henry Gonzalez, D-Tx, gave long special orders night after night, all shown by C-span, accusing President Reagan and then President Bush 41 with the worst sorts of treason, malfeasance, terrible things. And he wasn't the only one.

In those days we had a more responsible press doing actual journalism so it went nowhere. The Dems were definitely disappointed that the Iran-Contra investigation turned up no impeachable offenses of course.

And so it goes. But it is worse now than it has ever been.
 
vanceen said:
We'll survive Trump. Hysteria about "existential threats" is more likely to lead to unconstitutional maneuvers than Trump's shadow-boxing.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are right. Nonetheless, any time an attack occurs there is always the possibility of a loss occurring. What makes this attack so much more dangerous is that Trump has built a cult-like atmosphere and he has the Senate and the Attorney General doing his bidding. If it was only Trump, I would feel better about survival but when you have so many important-to-the-government people helping him to what he is doing, it does becomes much more dangerous to the Constitution. It does take on the look of an Existential Threat.
 
vanceen said:
If you think partisanshiip started when Obama took office, you need a longer view of history. It's always been around, but the current ridiculous situation started with Clinton's impeachment. The Democrats vowed revenge, and it's been tit for tat ever since, gradually getting worse.
Click to expand...

You may be right but then again the Clinton impeachment was a slap in the face that was unnecessary as a blow job is not a good reason to impeach. The Dems had a good reason to react negatively. One always has to see the root of the problem and the guilty party is the one that has to fix the problem and the Reps never have done that. Feuds start that way and the only thing that comes from a feud is a lot of people getting hurt.
 
Can the TDS threads get any dumber?deranged-600-la-1532882639.jpgcjones07262018.jpg
 
AlbqOwl said:
It actually started with Watergate. While not defending the Nixon Administration in any way re that--what was done was inexcusable--the side effect was impressing on Democrats that impeachment or the threat of impeachment was an effective tool in punishing their opponents. So we have seen them considering that in every GOP administration since.

It was pretty bad during the Reagan Administration. Henry Gonzalez, D-Tx, gave long special orders night after night, all shown by C-span, accusing President Reagan and then President Bush 41 with the worst sorts of treason, malfeasance, terrible things. And he wasn't the only one.

In those days we had a more responsible press doing actual journalism so it went nowhere. The Dems were definitely disappointed that the Iran-Contra investigation turned up no impeachable offenses of course.

And so it goes. But it is worse now than it has ever been.
Click to expand...

I recall all that. But it seems to me that the heat turned up after Clinton. Just a subjective judgement, of course.
 
Luckyone said:
You may be right but then again the Clinton impeachment was a slap in the face that was unnecessary as a blow job is not a good reason to impeach. The Dems had a good reason to react negatively. One always has to see the root of the problem and the guilty party is the one that has to fix the problem and the Reps never have done that. Feuds start that way and the only thing that comes from a feud is a lot of people getting hurt.
Click to expand...

Clinton wan't impeached for a blow job. He was impeached for obstructing justice.

I agree that it was a move that could have and should have been avoided, either by restraint on the Republicans' part or by Clinton telling the truth in the first place.

I don't agree that once you identify "who started it" then all the blame is on that side. That seems to be what you're saying. If so, enjoy the show, it's going to continue for a long time.
 
akyron said:
Yes. I am suspicious of unsupported assertions. That you just did twice in a row. Again you did not specify or support any of them.
Click to expand...

Sure, I can give you links, but I doubt you will read them or they will change your mind. Here is 3 articles on President's very limited influence over the economy:

one
two
three
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom