CairoCarol gave a pretty good list in post #13. Did you read that? She’s not even a conservative and was able to come up with that much.
asahi pointed out how the flow of illegal immigration appears to have slowed thanks to Trump in post #15. Did you read that?
I gave my own answer in post #29. Did you read that?
There are answers here, if you’re really Just Asking Questions.
Yes, I did. Did you read the posts you listed? They’re a) not from conservatives, and b) aren’t saying all those “accomplishments” are a good thing. You’re about the only one listing those as accomplishments. Needless to say, I don’t agree that all those are good accomplishments, nor that trump is responsible for them, but I can, and do, accept that at least one conservative (you) is saying they are to both. Thank you.
Why are you the only one? Why can’t my educated coworkers say anything besides “he’s not Hillary”? Why is the best arguments average FB users can say is riddled with workds like “Killary” and “librul terars”? Where is something that is bi-partisanly agreeable to be a genuine accomplishment that isn’t smoke and mirrors (like “jobs” and the stock market, which can have any number of causes)?
Gorsuch is only trump’s own “accomplishment” because he was sitting in the big chair when it happened. He had absolutely nothing to do with his nomination and his getting into the SC. That’s on congress, for not voting on Obama’s nomination.
The downturn in illegal immigration is something. Not sure what’s the cause, but it is something.
And since you listed them, why exactly is eliminating environmental, safety and other regulations a good thing? Does your job directly improve when your company can dump pollutants into the water?
And who exactly benefits when hunters can now kill hibernating bears? Or shoot animals from helicopters? Is there a huge pent up demand to do so?
Why is Bear’s Ears a bad idea? The “drill baby drill” crowd just itching to put oil wells there? Damn the natives wishes, strip mine Zion? What? Or is it simply because Obama did it?
Two possibilities come to mind:
Probably for the same reason my real-life political conversations with liberals leave me with the impression that they’re fucking drooling morons and convinced that it was a small miracle they managed to dress themselves that morning: most people are not smart, and that includes both most liberals and most conservatives.
The arguments against Trump posted by most FB users are equally moronic: “Drumpf is an evul wacist” and shit like that. See above.
What do you think about what’s happened in Mosul since Trump took over? It was under ISIS’ control and now it is not. That’s a “genuine accomplishment”, isn’t it?
I don’t work for a manufacturing company, so no, my job isn’t directly affected one way or another, but if you can’t understand how regulations can be a drag on the economy, I doubt I could explain it to you here without thoroughly derailing this thread, and if you do understand it, you already have the answer.
Hunters, I suppose. Certainly not the bears.
I don’t know, I wasn’t even aware of a change on this front, but I guess we’ll see now.
Because it forbade most any development in a huge chunk of San Juan County, much of which was not particularly sensitive, attractive, or note-worthy.
I don’t know, but if they do, I’ll consider it a good thing for San Juan County, and I suspect most of the residents there will too.
No.
To some of us, that’s a good thing. The question remains what he *has *done that his supporters wanted him to.
An accomplishment for whom? What has Trump done about it?
Yes, it would be a derailment, but if you can’t understand the *benefit *to the economy of not having pollution or dead/maimed workers or massive fraud …
That was one of Trump’s first, and therefore highest-priority, “accomplishments”. Sounds like you’re conceding it.
I admit I haven’t been there and seen it, but have you?
Not at all? You’re quite certain?
I don’t think “the question remains”. At least, it’s been answered. You may not like the answers, or I suppose you could be waiting for additional answers. Is that it?
An accomplishment for Trump. I already answered this in my reply to elucidator. The short version is that he hired Mattis and Mattis got shit done. Look, if you want to credit Obama with getting Osama, even though portions of the work were done under the GWB administation, you also have to concede credit to President Trump for liberating Mosul, even though portions of the work were done under the BHO administration. Otherwise you’re not being consistent, are you?
I don’t follow. Am I alleged to be conceding that it is an accomplishment? Or that it isn’t? Personally, I don’t hunt much, so I don’t really care.
Yes, or at least big sections of it. I don’t think I can claim to have seen every single acre, but I’ve seen a lot of it. Probably more than almost any other Doper.
Speaking for myself, yes. The act (declaring the Bears Ears NM) affected my opinion about the actor (Obama), but the actor did not affect my opinion about the act.
That’s a pretty weak argument from an environmental point of view. Not much to see of interest in an average grass plain, or arctic region, or middle of the Atlantic either. Doesn’t mean it’s not ecologically viable, nor does it give license to pollute or otherwise destroy.
Should it “give license” to build a few roads? Or is that an “otherwise destroy” action in your eyes?
Actually, i like that he’s failed, or not even tried, to do much of anything he said he would. Yes, there’s an answer: Diddlysquat. The question, or questions, that remain, are if his diminishing numbers of supporters can admit it, and if they can admit why they ever believed it.
Okay, what did Mattis do other than continue what was already being done?
Like fuck they were. You know better, or should. Remember GWB saying he didn’t care anymore?
I’m not in a position to intelligently comment on whether a road would constitute a substantial harm to the environment in this case. Is that the extent of the deregulation involved… a road? Or is it a road to multiple fracking sites or strip mines or some other more substantive environmental harms?
Based on your ideology, I can’t imagine that you have much of a sampling to work from. I doubt your social universe includes a lot of political discussion with liberals.
You seem to utterly reject the need for regulation. I haven’t seen a single example of your accepting any axiom other than that the net effect of deregulation would be positive. That’s the kind of thinking that brought us the Depression and the Great Recession, the Exxon Valdez, Deepwater Horizon, global warming, fracking, Madoff and Milken, robber barons, toxic dumping, bank/credit card overcharges, various and sundry monopolistic activities, almost an endless list of economic and/or environmental abuses. Left to itself, business is guaranteed to choose the bottom line in the macro regardless of cost, so long as that cost is borne by somebody else, whether they be consumers or future generations. (Granted, there are companies that are ‘socially responsible’ for more reasons than just PR, but they’re generally a very small minority and not particularly influential in the total market.)
I can’t imagine you have much knowledge or information to make declarations about my social universe that are any more substantive than (hilariously-wrong) wild-ass guesses or figments of your own fevered imagination.
I haven’t seen any evidence that the amount of regulation we have right now is the perfect amount. Would less be better? More? I don’t know of a way to objectively answer that question, but collectively we’ve elected a President and Congress that currently seem to think less would be better. I tend to agree, although there is some non-zero floor to that opinion.
I’ve already answered this. Go back to my final reply to elucidator in this thread, click the link I provided, and you will be able to read the answer for yourself.
I think it’s a reasonable guess that the reality will fall somewhere in the middle ground between a single road and “multiple fracking sites or strip mines”.
Just responding to this really quick.
There is no inconsistency here. GWB had stopped looking for Bin Laden. He even publicly declared that he didn’t care.
So, over 2 years after taking office, Obama took him out. Crediting Bush for actions 2 year later that he did not initiate, and in fact had disavowed, would make no sense.
Before trump took office, we were already fighting ISIS. I’t not highly visible to the american public, and it is hard to say how things are really going, and whether we are making progress or just playing whack-a-mole. Trump has not made any major changes to the plans, and is pretty much just a continuation of what was happening in the previous administration. It’s barely 6 months in. You can say that an accomplishment was in not changing the plan, and not stopping the progress that was made under the previous administration, but that is in no way like the claim you made that Bush should get the same credit for Osama as Obama should get for Mosul.
Cite?
Isn’t it prudent to know the potential impact before wholly endorsing a blanket deregulation to the protected land?
I’m pretty sure that’s a reference to a statement Bush gave at a press conference in 2002.
[QUOTE=Good ole’ G.W.]
“We haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is,” Bush said during the 2002 news conference. "I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.
“I was concerned about him when he had taken over a country,” Bush continued. “I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban. But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became – we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his Al Qaeda killers anymore.”
[/QUOTE]
I’ll leave it as an exercise for the reader to suss out the differences between “GWB had stopped looking for Bin Laden” and “I don’t spend that much time on him” / “I truly am not that concerned about him”. Here, perhaps maybe this NYT article will help: