Essay talk:Trump is a good President

Fluff piece.
Selective sourcing, selective coverage of topics and issues, and ignoring controversy and critism as merely "fake news" and "the leftist media"... Yawn, I haven't read such a pathetic fluff piece since the last midterms. 20:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"many companies announced that they would increase the bonuses for employees"

It's a common talking point to mention about how companies talk about bonuses but who qualifies for the bonuses is very low, not to mention the bonuses were a thing before the tax cut bill, and this is more like a bribe to keep supporting bad policies. Supply-side economics is bunk, there's no debate on it, and no amount of bribing is going to change that.

This is all short term, and to jump the gun and say that Trump led to economic growth is being way too quick to credit the president. This also applies to "Trump led to a good economy". That's not true. Most job growth you're seeing is still left-over from the natural recovery from the Great Recession, including Obama-era policies that have attempted to get more people working. Trump just happened to take seat in a recovery, so attributing the recovery to him is short-sighted.

And that's the economic side of things. What about the Paris deal? His shrinking of national parks? His allowing corporations to "accidentally" kill wild birds?

I'm about to go more but just go to Policies of Donald Trump which is far more comprehensive what he has done. 20:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * @GrammarCommie the sources chosen provide accurate coverage of Trump's actions without the constant smear and downright lies of CNN-like outlets. I'm not that surprised that you disapprove of it, but don't worry. I'm sure you will see plenty more 'fluff pieces' ahead of this years midterms.
 * @LeftyGreenMario The benefit may be too small for your liking, but the fact is these tax cuts benefit all. Another point (which I forgot to mention in the article) is since the tax cuts came into effect, Federal tax revenues have hit all-time highs. The exact same thing happened in the UK when the Conservative government reduced taxes. Tax cuts work.
 * The Paris deal had plenty of holes and wasn't followed by most of its members so the US' departure from it changes little. I don't know anything about the last 2 points but if wildlife is being killed then obviously I don't agree with it. My point is that Trump is a good President, no politician can be considered perfect. --RWRW (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Tax cuts are a short-term solution. Eventually, by cutting taxes but also increasing spending, you're going to create a bigger deficit in the long-term. 1 2 3, 4. Tax cuts historically have preceded recession, and they work best in tandem with less spending. This isn't what's happening, especially not when the bulk of it goes to rich people and while "everyone benefits" it's like a McDonald's meal before impending food shortages. 18:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I wanted counterarguments
I was actually looking forward to a well-thought out essay defending Trump. Unfortunately, I expected more than this. Here is the word-for-word text of the post I made that seemed to be one of the things inciting you to write this.

Due to the relatedness between this essay and my comment, I was expecting counterarguments to these points. I got none.

Let's go through point-by-point.

1). Trump and Kim: My point is about how now substantive progress on the summit has been made in almost two months. Your response is an article from shortly after the summit, which is outdated. It's also from the Straits Times, which is heavily influenced by the Singapore government and has an incentive to play up the success of the summit for prestige reasons.

2). Military Spending: This is actually a new one, but I have an immediate answer to this. Wasteful spending. It's long been known that the military wastes and loses hundreds of billions of dollars each year. The waste ranges from unneeded military bases ($156B), to administrative inefficiency ($125B), and undocumented expenditures (up to $700B). Why the heck do we want to pour more money into that black hole when the fiscally responsible thing would be to cut the fat? If anything, the Pentagon's inefficiency actively endangers our men in uniform. Also, Trump's efforts to make NATO spend more money are only endangering the alliance, especially now that he's questioning the very concept of collective defense.

3). Immigration: Addressed by me earlier, and I don't trust your source.

4). Economy: Deregulation is a good thing, but Trump is still about to sabotage his own economic gains with his moronic trade war. The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea of attacking China in principle. If we rallied our geopolitical allies to all hit China at once, we might have been able to do something good. But we're tariffing everybody, so that won't work. Taxing our own consumers in order to hit other countries is like stabbing your own hand to make your mom angry. (Also, the economy has been improving since Obama, and the deregulation agenda is far more a product of the GOP's establishment than Trump himself. Haven't you noticed how little he cares about the actual mechanics of his bills?)

5). Taxes: I like cutting taxes, and I have always liked cutting taxes. But this bill was largely aimed at corporations. Deficit-funding a corporate handout during good economic times without cutting spending is fiscal stupidity, especially when a lot of those corporations aren't doing much to pass those savings to their employees.

In short, I wanted more from this.
 * You expected more from a Trump apologia article? 17:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Economy: Deregulation is a good thing"
 * Stopped reading there. The 2008 recession was a consequence from bank deregulation that allowed banks to bubble up an economic catastrophe. We need consumer protections and we certainly need regulations to close banks and other corporations from exploiting tax havens to tax dodge, and we need to subject them to harsher penalties, not meager fines. 18:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * One rather extreme solution might be to simply stand idly by and let the banks crash and burn after they fuck up. However this a very extreme option as it would have massive fallout on the overall economy. 18:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * } that is unfortunate you think that. However, despite your sympathy to certain things such as tax cuts and deregulation, I suspect you have your mind strongly concluded about Trunp and there was nothing that I could ever say to change your mind. That being said I do still intend to continue working on that essay so I might include a "counter argument to common criticism" section in which I will address your points. --RWRW (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ha ha no, deregulation is not a good thing, neither is unfettered free trade, neoliberalism is why we have Trump in the White House in the first place. — Oxyaena Harass  18:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Unless you wrote this while you were in secondary school, the essay is actually kind of embarrassing for you. Excluding the issue of content, it reads like a mediocre secondary school paper: The ideas not fleshed out, and not much factual support is given for them. Regarding your unsupported statement on taxes, "The reasons for this are obvious- they benefit everyone." Really? How about the people who don't pay taxes (UK people on the dole; US people under the poverty line). It's not obvious how it could feasibly benefit them. You could have at least cited the discredited Laffer curve. Bongolian (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, it is possible that this essay hasn't aged particularly well. That bit wasn't well-written, and I guess it wouldn't directly affect those who don't pay taxes. But its certainly true that when we Brits started cutting corporation tax in 2010, the amount that HM Treasury received has increased. More money for public services. --RWRW (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It didn't age particularly well because it was a stinker to begin with. Again, no evidence to back up your assertions in 2019. Bongolian (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are we all commenting on this after more than a year? 19:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * RWRW left an unaddressed comment a month ago. I felt it shouldn't go without response, so I made a bump. Then others joined in. 🤷‍♀️ 19:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "It’s also correct that corporation tax revenues have increased since 2010" Also the fact that even Corbyn  doesn't want corporation tax to be higher than it was before 2010 suggests that he realises that high corporation taxes are a bad idea, he just can't bring himself to admit it. --RWRW (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

the concentration camps
i know this was written before all the stuff with the concentration camps started happening, but do you still think donald trump is good, even though he's been endorsing ICE kidnapping "illegal immigrants" (they've kidnapped both natural citizens and legal immigrants) and putting them in unsafe, unsanitary, crowded concentration camps in the US-mexico border? --he he i&#39;m johj (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Its definitely true that I've been questioning my support for Trump based on this very issue. I'm probably not the only one either. --RWRW (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one, a lot of people stateside have been too. — Oxyaena Harass  03:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a guy running on a racist platform and is apologetic to human rights abuse is now reveling in racist human rights abuse. Like, did you realize even only a little bit, how the fears of your ideological opponents played out? 06:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if anyone was predicting this would happen in the run up to 2016, I just remember the left screaming about how Trump would start World War 3. But they are certainly right to oppose the treatment of migrants. I should also point out that just because I think what’s happening at the border is terrible, I also don’t approve of the Democrats plans to decriminalise border crossing. —RWRW (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * People on the left at least have feared that Trump will mistreat certain immigrants; it's all based on his vile rhetoric, his initial racist politics of barring Muslim countries, and his emboldening of racists, a significant and strong part of this base, to commit hate crimes. But no one is arguing that people shouldn't be penalized for illegal border crossing, just that the hurdles for immigrating shouldn't be ridiculously difficult (and which leads to more undocumented immigrants). Democrats tend to support immigration reform but they understand that the immigration process is unnecessarily onerous. For instance, there is a very small cap of immigrants that can come to this country (and there's also a lottery to boot), and it creates a lot of problems for family members, refugees, economically dire people. Even the viable means of immigration (family connections especially) are getting cut away with Trump wanting to slash the amount of immigrants that can come here (and this can lead to people overstaying their visas if they think they cannot return to this country; that people can come legally and then be at risk of deportation is why I prefer the term "undocumented immigrants" over "illegal immigrants" and the terms "illegal aliens" or "illegals" should not be used at all). 17:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean there's also the fact that he doesn't understand the difference between "refugee" (legally protected in the U.S.) and "immigrant" (legally protected to a lesser extent.) 17:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To Trump and supporters, they tend to just see those as coming in to leech off the country. I think even with the awareness of distinction, it's not like they care. 17:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

A Godwin
So I'm going full Goodwin on this:

Adolph Hitler is one of the most controversial and outspoken politicians in modern times. Few thought he would even win the Nazi Party leadership, let alone Become German chancellor. Yet he did.

Unsurprisingly, Hitler is not too popular on RationalWiki. This essay will attempt to outline the reasons why Hitler is a good leader if even 1 RationalWiki user/reader tells me they will consider supporting Hitler in the future, I will be happy.

Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact – the left often tries to criticise or downplay this, but there is no doubt that this was a major foreign policy achievement. Hitler's agreement with Stalin was the biggest diplomatic breakthrough in Europe in 70 years. It showed that Hitler's tough stance with diplomacy was working.

Increasing military spending - Every strong nation needs a strong military. Under Chancellor Hitler, German spending on armaments has increased massively.

Forcing additional Emigration - Another achievement is Hitler's success in persuading minorities to actually leave the country. This is even better that stopping immigration!

Economic growth – Under Chancellor Hitler the economy has blossomed, thus providing more money for the ramaments Germany needs to defend itself.

Cutting taxes – Cutting taxes is a common policy with centre-right and right-wing candidates/political parties. Hitler's policies have been described as "He embarked on huge public-works programs like autobahns, protected industry from foreign competition, expanded credit, instituted jobs programs, bullied the private sector on prices and production decisions, vastly expanded the military, enforced capital controls ..and eventually ran huge deficits."

There are many, many more positive actions Adolph Hitler has made as President. Quite often the leftist media won’t report them but luckily the ratings for these ‘fake news’ organisations are on a downward trend as people cast them aside in favour of truth.

And after writing that I'm going to have shower as it's made me feel a bit dirty.Hubert (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)