Before Trump took office, there were people who said that he would turn America into The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s safe to say that women aren’t being required to wear red dresses and white bonnets (and probably won’t ever be), so that one is hyperbolic.
A more common claim is that he is turning America into a “fascist dictatorship”. While it is true that he’s trying to act with more unfettered power than many previous presidents, if Trump is a dictator in which a midterm election causes his party to lose control of one house of Congress, and a dictator in which numerous checks and balances act on him (re: judges overruling his actions, Pelosi stymieing his wall,) then this must be the weakest dictatorship of all time, or not a dictatorship at all. That is…mostly hyperbole, if not entirely hyperbole.
As for Trump being Hitler, there haven’t been death camps or invasions of neighboring nations, or even any major wars.
Is he making things more corrupt, not acting presidential, etc.? Yes, so that is not hyperbole.
Was ISIS defeated in six months? No. Numerous claims or promises have not been kept, so, those were hyperbole to his supporters. The Rust Belt is still languishing, coal jobs have not come back, etc.
What else - out of the long lists of dozens or hundreds of things that people have claimed or predicted about Trump’s presidency - have been hyperbole, or not?
Accusing Trump of treason doesn’t seem to be hyperbole. The russia ties, but now its coming out that they may have tried to help Saudi Arabia get nuclear materials (which needs to be investigated thoroughly). He trusts Russian intelligence agencies more than US agencies and Putin is one of the only people he won’t criticize.
Saying Trump is an authoritarian who doesn’t like democracy isn’t hyperbole either. Its just that our democracy is (currently) strong enough to resist the damage he wants to do to our democracy. Trump wants to be a dictator, he just isn’t very good at it for multiple reasons.
On the whole Trump has basically proven to be a conventional Republican in the Reagan-Bush tradition albeit with an extreme penchant for ignorant or controversial remarks and behaviour. His biggest domestic policy achievement is a large tax cut for the wealthy while Trump has pulled out of the Iran Deal and continued to be a strong supporter of Israel’s Likud government. Kavanaugh is a Bush-era nominee which the former President actively solicited support for during the nomination process. Even Trump’s protectionist tendencies, which cannot be overlooked, were anticipated by some Reagan and Bush-era policies in that direction. The only real Trump policy distinctive is his engagement with North Korea for denuclearization where his desire for “dealmaking” and South Korean President Moon Jae-In’s careful personal cultivation of Trump in that regard ultimately beat the demands of the Administration’s Republican advisors such as John Bolton.
The only good thing about Trump – and it is a big good thing – is the enormous opposition wave he has caused. I think complacency has died in America, thanks to him. As far as hyperbole, you would have to compare what he clearly WANTS – a dictatorship a la Mussolini – and what he is getting, which is mostly just chaos and anger. Thank the opposition, and his own incredible incompetence, for that.
He’s trying, he’s just not had much success yet.
Anyone who suggested the US would already be a dictatorship by the midterms was living in fantasy land. But eroding many checks and balances as well as breeding a “You can’t trust anybody or anything except dear leader” cynicism / idolatry, and general stoking of divisions is a good start.
Trump has tinkered around the margins with the post wwii status quo. The presidency of Bush II was a more radical presidency. The hyperbole is new. The presidential rhetoric is new.
Basically everything he has done that was met with hyperbole was shown to be marginal changes in Obama or Bush policy.
That being said he is an unmitigated disaster on par with BushII, Obama, Clinton, Nixon, LBJ, Reagan, and Truman and is a dangerous autocrat.
Given Iran’s actions in recent years, there’s a legitimate argument to be made that providing Saudi Arabia with some sort of nuclear help is in our national interest.
No there’s not (nuclear proliferation puts every human at risk). Especially when Iran has been abiding by the nuclear agreement, according to the evidence. If anything would spark Iran to decide that they needed nukes, it would be us giving SA nukes. This is not anything close to a “legitimate argument”.
You should create a website called “AmIHyperboleOrNot,” which flashes a series of claims about Trump and lets users click YES or NO. I bet you could make literally dozens of dollars while keeping your spreadsheet up to date.
I think this is an insane opinion. Do you really believe this? You really think giving Saudi Arabia nuclear weapons technology based on the actions of Iran is a good idea? How about Iraq, should we give them nukes too? Egypt? Turkey? Where do you think the line should be drawn?
