Will History Judge Trump to be a Good President? [W:101]

[DA60]

Where is the 'How the heck would I know - he is not even sworn in yet' Option?

 

[DA60]

I think he's shown nothing but positives so far. But... he hasn't even become president yet xD any hypotheticals right now will probably be extremely partisan based.

Nothing but positives?

People who burn the flag should be thrown in jail/out of the country?

Okaaaaaay.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

It is too soon to know how history will judge Obama or even W.

Usually, it takes about 8-10 years AFTER a President's term to determine what kind of President they were. We are only now beginning to assess Bush II's legacy, but we are still a few years away from having a real clear picture. And the only people who assess Obama are hacks.

 

[Logicman]

And the only people who assess Obama are hacks.

Wrong. We already know what a complete failure and loser Obama has been. He's gutted the Democratic Party, losing governorships, the House, the Senate, and state chambers as well. Not to mention how he screwed up America with his Obummercare, etc. The only people who assess Obama as being a success are hacks.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Wrong. We already know what a complete failure and loser Obama has been. He's gutted the Democratic Party, losing governorships, the House, the Senate, and state and houses as well. Not to mention how he screwed up America with his Obummercare, etc. The only people who assess Obama as being a success are hacks.

Congratulations. You just proved me right.

 

[LessBiased?]

Wrong. We already know what a complete failure and loser Obama has been. He's gutted the Democratic Party, losing governorships, the House, the Senate, and state chambers as well. Not to mention how he screwed up America with his Obummercare, etc. The only people who assess Obama as being a success are hacks.

How is he a "complete failure"? Last I checked, the country is doing reasonably well overall. Doesn't mean it can't be better, but falling short of utopia can't be pinned on whoever happened to be president.

And don't get carried away by Trump's win. It was by a small margin in swing states, and Clinton won the popular vote. There's no mandate for Trump or republicans. Dems lost out in this election because they were overconfident, their message was "not Trump" instead of something compelling in itself, and Trump was effective in marketing his message of a need for big change and potential to make America great again (when was it so much greater previously?).

 

[Moderate Right]

This is my first post in this forum, so please forgive me if I'm going down a path which is already well trodden. I hope to learn a lot in this forum, and perhaps also contribute in a small way to the discussions.

I think of myself as an independent (neither party resonates with me enough that I want to be a member), I voted for Clinton, and was as surprised as anyone that Trump won the election. Clearly, my understanding of things was well off the mark! Seeing that we're in uncharted waters, I thought I better start paying attention and trying to learn who Trump is, so that I can better predict, at least in a broad sense, how the coming months and years might unfold under Trump's presidency. I'm finding that the more I study Trump, the more I like him and the more optimistic I am about our future with him. If I had to vote today, I think I'd vote for him. Reading 'The Art of the Deal' has shaped my understanding of Trump (he seems to be essentially the same person as he was three decades ago), and I recommend reading that book.

With all of that as preface, I've set up a poll to see what others think about how Trump will do as President.

I hope the poll is a trick question for those who are partisan. I'll let you know the answer in about 20 years. Until then, no one on either side really knows the answer. He could turn out to be the best president the country has ever had or we could be all vaporized from a nuclear war shortly after he takes office, or anywhere in between.

 

[shrubnose]

It all depends on what he does and doesn't do while he's in office.

Get back with us after he's out of the White House and we'll tell you.

 

[LessBiased?]

I hope the poll is a trick question for those who are partisan. I'll let you know the answer in about 20 years. Until then, no one on either side really knows the answer. He could turn out to be the best president the country has ever had or we could be all vaporized from a nuclear war shortly after he takes office, or anywhere in between.

The uncertainty is high, so no one "knows" what will happen, and no one can know. The poll was intended to ask people's best guesses. That would at least indicate the distribution of sentiment in the forum.

In retrospect, better wording for the poll question would have been "What is your best guess regarding how Trump will do, overall, as President, as history will judge him?"

 

[Mason66]

The uncertainty is high, so no one "knows" what will happen, and no one can know. The poll was intended to ask people's best guesses. That would at least indicate the distribution of sentiment in the forum.

In retrospect, better wording for the poll question would have been "What is your best guess regarding how Trump will do, overall, as President, as history will judge him?"

You didn't ask people's opinions. You asked how would history view him.

They are very different questions.

 

[LessBiased?]

You didn't ask people's opinions. You asked how would history view him.

They are very different questions.

I thought it was implied and obvious that I was asking their opinions/predictions/guesses of how history would view him. Nothing more.

 

[Logicman]

Congratulations. You just proved me right.

In your dreams.

 

[Logicman]

How is he a "complete failure"? Last I checked, the country is doing reasonably well overall.

That's in spite of him, not because of him.

Dems lost out in this election because they were overconfident, their message was "not Trump" instead of something compelling in itself, and Trump was effective in marketing his message of a need for big change and potential to make America great again (when was it so much greater previously?).

America declined under Obama. Christianity was attacked, and Obama was America's most Biblically-Hostile president in history.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

God was an important part of Colonial America and America's founding fathers. Liberalism kicked God under the bus at every turn possible. You people need to learn that when you do that, you are losing the heartland of America. Wise up.

 

[Tigerace117]

That's in spite of him, not because of him.



America declined under Obama. Christianity was attacked, and Obama was America's most Biblically-Hostile president in history.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

God was an important part of Colonial America and America's founding fathers. Liberalism kicked God under the bus at every turn possible. You people need to learn that when you do that, you are losing the heartland of America. Wise up.

Uh....no, not really. The founders deliberately refused to install an official church and a good number of them were deists. Separation of Church and State is a fundamental American value. I don't really care if some random schmoe in Missouri or Alabama doesn't like that.

 

[LessBiased?]

That's in spite of him, not because of him.

America declined under Obama. Christianity was attacked, and Obama was America's most Biblically-Hostile president in history.

WallBuilders - Issues and Articles - America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

God was an important part of Colonial America and America's founding fathers. Liberalism kicked God under the bus at every turn possible. You people need to learn that when you do that, you are losing the heartland of America. Wise up.

To say that America "declined" under Obama, you need to specify how you're measuring that. If the measure is the status of Christianity in influencing government policies, the courts, etc., I would say that decline has been going on for a long time, in many countries, due to a general secularization of societies. It's not specifically a liberal thing, but liberals do tend to be more open to diverse views on religion, and therefore less adherent to particular religions.

IMO, religion needs to remain separated from government, and the historical argument carries little weight. Based on history, America was native American before any Christians arrived. Moreover, the founding fathers were mostly deists, not Christians in a traditional sense.

 

[Logicman]

Uh....no, not really. The founders deliberately refused to install an official church and a good number of them were deists.

Strawman. Arguing for an official church (which the founders rejected) in no way takes away from their beliefs in God.

As for deist founding fathers, I doubt you can list five framers who don't have quotes about a God who either reveals religion (sacred scripture, etc.), or who they feel involves Himself in the affairs of men and/or nations.

Separation of Church and State is a fundamental American value. I don't really care if some random schmoe in Missouri or Alabama doesn't like that.

Not in the Constitution. The founders had church services in the U.S. Capitol bldg for decades.

 

[Logicman]

To say that America "declined" under Obama, you need to specify how you're measuring that. If the measure is the status of Christianity in influencing government policies, the courts, etc., I would say that decline has been going on for a long time, in many countries, due to a general secularization of societies. It's not specifically a liberal thing, but liberals do tend to be more open to diverse views on religion, and therefore less adherent to particular religions.

IMO, religion needs to remain separated from government, and the historical argument carries little weight. Based on history, America was native American before any Christians arrived. Moreover, the founding fathers were mostly deists, not Christians in a traditional sense.

"How widespread was deism among America’s Founding Fathers?"

"Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas conducted a study of the Founding Founders to look at this question (whether the Founding Fathers were deists or Christians). He discovered the Founders were members of denominations as follows: twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, and three deists. – Reference: M. E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, NH: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), iv–v."

https://righterreport.com/2014/06/15/were-the-founding-fathers-deists/

 

[LessBiased?]

From Brittanica, regarding the founding fathers and deism:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

"Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time."​

And we no longer live in the 1700s, society has evolved. There's no place for a formal role of religion in our government. It's a diverse country full of people of varying faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists. They all have a place here, and none should be oppressed by a religion sanctioned by the government. That has been tried in Islamic states, and isn't working too well. Christians should be free to practice their faith, but not free to impose it on others. Isn't freedom one of the key values of conservatives?

 

[eohrnberger]

Could we get him sworn in first?

Agreed Maggie, I think it's a bit premature at this juncture.

I don't even believe that enough time has passed to determine the same the Bush or Obama presidencies.

 

[Tigerace117]

Strawman. Arguing for an official church (which the founders rejected) in no way takes away from their beliefs in God.

As for deist founding fathers, I doubt you can list five framers who don't have quotes about a God who either reveals religion (sacred scripture, etc.), or who they feel involves Himself in the affairs of men and/or nations.



Not in the Constitution. The founders had church services in the U.S. Capitol bldg for decades.

A good number of the founders thought God didn't give a damn about us. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

One can be officially a member of one sect or another yet still be a deist.

Ever hear of the First Amendment? Clearly, the founding fathers thought it was important to make sure no idiot decided to create a theocracy.

 

[interisting]

he will be impeached very quickly. he will cause wwiii.

 

[Logicman]

A good number of the founders thought God didn't give a damn about us. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

One can be officially a member of one sect or another yet still be a deist.

Did you bother to read the definitions of a deist from my previous link?

"Deism, the religious attitude typical of the Enlightenment, especially in France and England, holds that the existence of God can be only proved based on the application of reason and the world can be discovered through observation experience and reasoning. A Deist is defined as “One who believes in the existence of a God or Supreme Being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” Deism was often synonymous with so-called natural religion because its principles are drawn from nature and human reasoning. In contrast to Deism there are many cultural or revealed religions, such as Judaism, Trinitarian Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and others, which believe in supernatural intervention of God in the world; while Deism denies any supernatural intervention and emphasizes that the world is operated by natural laws of the Supreme Being. – Wikipedia, “Deism in England and France in the 18th century.”

“Deism has come to denote the theological belief that God created the universe according to scientific laws, but does not interfere in its daily operation.” – The New World Encyclopedia. Deism: “[From Latin Deus, God Deity] The doctrine or creed of a Deist.” One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being, but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason.” – Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1941. Deism is not a religion, but a religious philosophy. It advances the theory that God exists, that He created the universe, but does not intervene in the affairs of humankind. – ushistory.com."

So, like I said before, I doubt you can list five framers who don't have quotes about a God who either references reveals religion (sacred scripture, etc.), or who they feel involves Himself in the affairs of men and/or nations.

Ever hear of the First Amendment? Clearly, the founding fathers thought it was important to make sure no idiot decided to create a theocracy.

Strawman. Like I said earlier, arguing for an official church (or a theocracy, which the founders rejected) in no way takes away from their beliefs in God.

You are aware the founding fathers held church services in government buildings, including the U.S. Capitol building, for decades after the war, right? They obviously had a different understanding of that 1st Amendment than you folks have today.

 

[LessBiased?]

I see that there's another poll thread about whether America is a "Christian nation." The answer is no, it has never been the case, and I doubt that it ever will be. The fervor of Christians who want that to be the case is likely very similar to fervor of Muslims who want Islamic states (ISIS perhaps being an extreme example), not to mention the fervor that resulted in the creation of Israel. Nasty conflicts have resulted from those politico-religious projects. IMO, the last thing any sensible person should want is to follow the same path in America.

 

[jamesrage]

To clarify, I realize we're still at an early stage, so it's an early prediction, but we can still make predictions based on what we know so far.

We are not in a any stage right now. He is not in office yet. So history has nothing to judge him on right now. Sure the Clinton-tards and other lib-tards will pick quite poor or below average. While the Trump-tards will pick excellent of very good. Those people are just making assumptions based on their love or hate for Trump. This thread is the equivalent to the Nobel Committee deciding whether or not they should give Obama a Nobel peace prize before he has even taken office.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

In your dreams.

Nope, in reality. A place where you demonstrate you do not live.