I mean the 3 according to the MAGAts. I watched a short clip the other day where he was, with little prompting, claiming widespread support for him being on Rushmore. Because of his uber-successful first term. I’m sure the fucker accidentally did some good, but what (according to the MAGAts) makes him Rushmoreworthy?
Having seen this questions put to MAGAts the most popular answer is ‘His policies.’
Don’t press for more details, all you’ll get is a blank stare and, often, some drool.
Dang, because I was going to say “hasn’t visibly shit himself in public, as far as we know.”
And that’s pretty much it.
Trump put an end to all the racism that Obama created.
I’m pretty sure I’ve actually heard that one. Maybe in a Good Liars MAGA interview clip. I think the person was referring to all the discrimination white males historically faced before Trump was elected.
To give the devil his due, am sure history will rank his first term as substantially more successful than his second.
Shorter too. Perhaps by a decade or more.
Here’s a list of (mostly) bad things Trump did in his first term but, surprisingly, there actually were a few good things. My favorite was him trying a bad thing but made it good:
- Trump didn’t repeal Obamacare — he accidentally bolstered it
- Legal marijuana spreads across most of the country
- Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering (that one is surprising)
He pardoned the Dread Pirate Roberts, making it easier for me to get heroin by mail and hire someone to whack my enemies of which I have many, you wouldn’t believe.
But before they put him on Mt. Rushmore, they need to blow up those other guys.
I’m not sure if people want the serious answers in the Pit, but basically I think it’s this:
- Roaring economy
- No foreign wars
- The third could be any number of things. I suspect in many cases it will be “being respected by other nations”
NB: On first draft of this post I included a detailed debunk of all 3, but then I doubted anyone here needs to see it.
I honestly thought you were going to say they’d say:
- Neil Gorsuch
- Brett Kavanaugh
- Amy Coney Barrett
Ah right, the SC justices is probably better as achievement #3.
And again let me emphasize: I am giving the 3 greatest achievements the average MAGA has in mind for Trump’s first term.
I personally can’t stand the cunt, and think all the achievements are dubious, or in the case of the supreme court, involved dirty tactics, so presaged the unraveling of institutional norms.
That’d probably be the third thing. Revisiting @Mijin 's list, I’d make it:
- A roaring economy (if one conveniently ignores 2020)
- No foreign wars
- Installing a conservative majority in the Supreme Court
Edit: #3, of course, had pretty much fuck-all to do with Trump himself. He was able to name Gorsuch only because Mitch McConnell cock-blocked Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, and he was able to name Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett because Kennedy retired and RBG died. Even then, he was simply nominating people whom the Federalist Society recommended.
Agreed. And to give the quick version of the debunks –
- A reasonable economy, not quite as good as either his predecessor or successor. And yes, that’s with giving him a pass (that no democrat would get) for tanking the economy in the last year.
- Not quite no foreign wars – bombs were dropped and 65 US soldiers died during his term. Also the talking point of Biden supposedly being responsible for two conflicts is garbage; foreign events happen, in some terms it’s wars, in some it’s a pandemic.
It’s not like the current Iran conflict where we can pin specific events on the bad decisions of the US president. - Yep, SC justices was a clear win, though obtained by shitting all over a system that had worked for generations. ETA: and as @kenobi_65 points out, was more of an inherited win
He inherited the roaring economy, and no foreign wars is straight up incorrect. Defeating ISIS is a talking point as well, even though more territory was taken back during Obama’s term and the strategy was the same.
I would give him:
- Operation Warp Speed (incredibly undercut if not reversed by his rhetoric afterwards)
- Whacking Soleiman didn’t have the blowback predicted.
I think the OP was asking what wins MAGAs are alluding to from Trump’s first term.
While we’re on the subject of real wins though, how was whacking Soleimani a win? Trump took a country which, while not to be trusted by any means, had fulfilled its end of the JCPOA. He tore that up, ushered in the era of the US openly ignoring international law*, and helped create further chaos in the region. It’s not a win merely because it didn’t cause as much chaos as it easily could have.
* Yes, I know the US doesn’t have great history in this regard but there are levels of thumbing one’s nose at the international order. This assassination (also now the bombing of Iranian nuclear sites) is at the “top of the burj khalifa, shine get” level.
You questioned Soleimani but then talked about the JCPOA and his dealings with Iran as a whole.
Soleimani was a terrorist that had been killing thousands around the region including specifically targeting Americans with Iranian made EFPs.
Backing out of the JCPOA is a giant disaster.
I suppose a MGA would say the three greatest acheivements of trump’s first term were
- Destroy respect for the rule of law, not of men.
- Destroy democracy at home.
- Destroy human decency at home.
And those are all good things in MAGA-land.
Sure, I was trying to summarise the whole situation. I know the general’s assassination wasn’t caused by the nuclear deal, though it probably couldn’t have happened without the us reneging first.
Soleimani was undoubtedly a bad guy but assassinating someone in government crossed a line. Imagine how the US would feel if hegseth was assassinated; after the dancing in the street died down, it would be considered an act of war…pushing the US to do more than the current strikes, arming of proxies and war crimes.
Heck even netanyahu alluded to this, needing to claim Iran has attempted to assassinate trump.
I mean, we empirically know how Iran responded.
Look, in the immediate aftermath I thought it was a fuckup. 5 years down the line and the blowback that happened was worth it. Pretty clearly too, IMO.
Now, you could argue, I suppose, that winning Russian roulette doesn’t mean the risk was worth it. I’ll take what we know over theoreticals though.
But part of that blowback was the Iranians accidentally shooting down a civilian airliner. That was shocking enough to both sides that they actually stopped and asked themselves if they wanted to keep going down that route.
Had they kept just shooting at each other’s military assets, things would likely have kept spiraling out of control.