Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Without endorsing all that is Trump, what I did like about his tenure is that I had more money in my pocket to make decisions for myself. Whether that be buying more energy efficient appliances or perhaps an EV. Now I have less money, appliances are more expensive, and we're being told "don't like the price at the pump, just buy an EV lol".


More money in the pockets of already affluent people doesn't spur much new consumption. Only policies that put energy efficiency in the hands of everyone are going to make a dent.


As a person Trump was a shitshow. Had he listened to feedback from his advisors and I dare say the general public he would still be in office. His policies which include foreign relations, immigration, energy and monetary though were pro American and good for the USA as a whole.


That's nonsense. The president doesn't even set monetary policy. Monetary policy is explicitly designed to be apolitical yet it didn't stop him from threatening the fed chair with retaliation if he didn't set negative rates. Thankfully Powell ignored him or inflation would be substantially worse.


The policies were good for America and NATO.

He told Germany and other NATO leaders that dependence on Russian oil was a major threat to their economies. He told them they should focus on other avenues. But they didn't listen. He was tough on Russia.


https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/15/18183759/t...

He wasn't advising Germany to divest from Russia because it would strengthen NATO. He was saying NATO was corrupted because of Russian oil and therefore was worthless. This is based on the same fallacious perspective that Putin employs. Namely that NATO exists to be Russia's adversary. NATO exists for the defense of politically-aligned democracies against aggressors. Russia is only the enemy of NATO because they choose to be. Trump's behavior towards Ukraine was not only grotesquely unethical and breach of his Constitutional obligations but seriously weakened their position when it came to resisting Russia.


I would counter with the comment that threatening to leave NATO was his strategy to get them to contribute more of their GDP to the military budget.

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/trump-admin-sets-allied-...

I at the time thought that was a very wise strategy. Recent events have proven that true.


Based on all his public statements and all the insider accounts from both career civil servants and even his own political appointees, Trump never bothered to understand the subtlety of NATO or really any other policy. Just read what Fiona Hill and John Bolton among others have to say. He wanted out of NATO. He respected the word of Putin, he hated Ukraine and it was 100% personal. He refused to press Putin on election interference when he met him in Finland, but withheld Congressionally appropriated aid to Ukraine unless they did him a favor to help his own electoral fortunes.

The 2% defense spending target was negotiated by Obama and agreed by NATO members before Trump took office. Trump took that cue and railed that America was paying for NATO as though it were a dues-based organization. When he went to Brussels to push for compliance, he raised the prospect of 4% as a new spending target even when the US was tracking to drop below 3%. While he may have achieved a policy victory here and there it was only ever by coincidence. I've not seen any indication has understands or even cares about any policy whatsoever and only says things that get him attention.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/12/opinion/editorials/trump-...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/11/obama-and-bush-also-pressed-...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: