The successes of President Donald Trump and their under-reporting by the media (please, no flaming)

[alhoon]

I recently read an article (actually an opinion piece) that claimed the Media are under-reporting Trump's successes and highlighting his failures.
Then, it lists a long list of Trump efforts that were successful (whether you agree with them or not) or had positive impact on USA (according to the author's opinions). I disagree with many of those "successes" or find them to be negative things. But some (the economy, ISIS etc) are arguably positive and Trump doesn't take the credit for.

To be fair, the article admits openly that Trump himself is much to blame for getting 90%+ negative coverage, which I agree with. But it also mentions Jimmy Carter openly admitting that Trump's administration is the most vilified by the media in his 93-years long life.
I.e. yes, Trump being a butthole and declaring war on the media is part of the reason he gets negative coverage. Trump's policies like separating children at the border, leaving long time allies to be gobbled up by authoritarian leaders and other downright horrible decisions that ought to be exposed and discussed are another reason of why he gets negative press: He does bad\stupid\evil things often.
But a lot of people, even Jimmy Carter, admit that the press under-reports Trump's successes or what-his-constituents-would-consider-success because they are anti-Trump and Trump's several successes simply don't fit the narrative that Trump's presidency is a horrid disaster.


So, I would like to have a discussion, hopefully a tame one conducted in respectful tones about:
- Trump's successes (things he did, started or partially did) that he said he would do
- Trump administration's positive things (i.e. which of those successes above are actually positive?)
- Whether Trump's successes are under-represented because the media dislike Trump

I will start with:
- Under Trump, Al-Baghdadi dies. And half the articles I see are more focused on how bad Trump presented this great success than on the terrorist-boss that caused the death of hundreds of thousands and led to the displacement of millions of others being killed.
Yes it was a great success for Trump and yes, the Media should be much much more positive on their report than stick to how Trump talked about it.

- Under Trump, the economy reached record heights. Sure, sure it may come down like a huge tower of cards. But so far it hasn't.
By removing the breaks from the economy by deregulation, Trump's actions have contributed to historical heights of the stock market, record low unemployment (the lowest since WW2), sustained economic growth and sustained consumer confidence.
Very rarely has USA's economy seen such heights and the man at the helm is catching flak for it instead of being praised.

What I mean is that the articles I see about the stockmarket are usually "Stock market horrid crush continues! At the lowest point since 2016!!!!11111" or "Fears of the Trade war keep markets in a downwards spiral!!!!!11111"
I have to actually look for the graphs to see that "the lowest point" since 2016 is not a big deal and the sustained horrid crush is 2-weeks long and was preceded by 2 months of raise. Or that the markets recovered from the downwards spiral within a week.

And I don't see articles of "Stock market recovers from tiny losses and makes huge gains. 2019 is another awesome year, following many awesome years".

- I don't think Trump is responsible for defeating ISIS. But neither was Obama.
And it remains a fact that ISIS was defeated during Trump's years and Trump doesn't get any credit for that.

- Under Trump illegal immigration keeps being lowered. Of course, I had to do some search through various articles about Trump-the-butcher to get to one that mentions inside the article, not at the title that illegal immigrations in USA is at the lowest it has been for 13 years.
Do I think Trump went too far with the separation of children from their families? Yes. Do I think there were cheaper and more effective ways to combat illegal immigration than what he has done so far, or the wall? Yes.
But what Trump did worked. Sure, it could have worked better. But USA illegal immigration is at a 13 years low. That's a success for Trump.

- He kept out of major wars.
Frankly, which this is something he has promised, I expect it will come to bite USA in the butt. But it is a success for him and I don't see many articles saying "Trump has been a butthole to our Kurdish allies but kept his promise to his constituents" or "World condemnation over Trump's treacherous uphold of campaign promise on Middle East".
Yes, I disagree with what he did and I am 100% sure there were far, far better ways to leave than simply blindside his own generals and foreign policy analysts.
BUT... if the USA voters didn't want someone that said he would do exactly that, they should not have voted for him. They would unfortunately have to pay the price in a few years, but that's what they voted for and that's what Trump delivered.

[B. W.]

I recently read an article (actually an opinion piece) that claimed the Media are under-reporting Trump's successes and highlighting his failures.
Then, it lists a long list of Trump efforts that were successful (whether you agree with them or not) or had positive impact on USA (according to the author's opinions). I disagree with many of those "successes" or find them to be negative things. But some (the economy, ISIS etc) are arguably positive and Trump doesn't take the credit for.

To be fair, the article admits openly that Trump himself is much to blame for getting 90%+ negative coverage, which I agree with. But it also mentions Jimmy Carter openly admitting that Trump's administration is the most vilified by the media in his 93-years long life.
I.e. yes, Trump being a butthole and declaring war on the media is part of the reason he gets negative coverage. Trump's policies like separating children at the border, leaving long time allies to be gobbled up by authoritarian leaders and other downright horrible decisions that ought to be exposed and discussed are another reason of why he gets negative press: He does bad\stupid\evil things often.
But a lot of people, even Jimmy Carter, admit that the press under-reports Trump's successes or what-his-constituents-would-consider-success because they are anti-Trump and Trump's several successes simply don't fit the narrative that Trump's presidency is a horrid disaster.


So, I would like to have a discussion, hopefully a tame one conducted in respectful tones about:
- Trump's successes (things he did, started or partially did) that he said he would do
- Trump administration's positive things (i.e. which of those successes above are actually positive?)
- Whether Trump's successes are under-represented because the media dislike Trump

I will start with:
- Under Trump, Al-Baghdadi dies. And half the articles I see are more focused on how bad Trump presented this great success than on the terrorist-boss that caused the death of hundreds of thousands and led to the displacement of millions of others being killed.
Yes it was a great success for Trump and yes, the Media should be much much more positive on their report than stick to how Trump talked about it.

- Under Trump, the economy reached record heights. Sure, sure it may come down like a huge tower of cards. But so far it hasn't.
By removing the breaks from the economy by deregulation, Trump's actions have contributed to historical heights of the stock market, record low unemployment (the lowest since WW2), sustained economic growth and sustained consumer confidence.
Very rarely has USA's economy seen such heights and the man at the helm is catching flak for it instead of being praised.

What I mean is that the articles I see about the stockmarket are usually "Stock market horrid crush continues! At the lowest point since 2016!!!!11111" or "Fears of the Trade war keep markets in a downwards spiral!!!!!11111"
I have to actually look for the graphs to see that "the lowest point" since 2016 is not a big deal and the sustained horrid crush is 2-weeks long and was preceded by 2 months of raise. Or that the markets recovered from the downwards spiral within a week.

And I don't see articles of "Stock market recovers from tiny losses and makes huge gains. 2019 is another awesome year, following many awesome years".

- I don't think Trump is responsible for defeating ISIS. But neither was Obama.
And it remains a fact that ISIS was defeated during Trump's years and Trump doesn't get any credit for that.

- Under Trump illegal immigration keeps being lowered. Of course, I had to do some search through various articles about Trump-the-butcher to get to one that mentions inside the article, not at the title that illegal immigrations in USA is at the lowest it has been for 13 years.
Do I think Trump went too far with the separation of children from their families? Yes. Do I think there were cheaper and more effective ways to combat illegal immigration than what he has done so far, or the wall? Yes.
But what Trump did worked. Sure, it could have worked better. But USA illegal immigration is at a 13 years low. That's a success for Trump.

- He kept out of major wars.
Frankly, which this is something he has promised, I expect it will come to bite USA in the butt. But it is a success for him and I don't see many articles saying "Trump has been a butthole to our Kurdish allies but kept his promise to his constituents" or "World condemnation over Trump's treacherous uphold of campaign promise on Middle East".
Yes, I disagree with what he did and I am 100% sure there were far, far better ways to leave than simply blindside his own generals and foreign policy analysts.
BUT... if the USA voters didn't want someone that said he would do exactly that, they should not have voted for him. They would unfortunately have to pay the price in a few years, but that's what they voted for and that's what Trump delivered.

Separating children from their parents is an Obama era policy and was mandated by a judge who was appointed by Democrats.

Which is interesting because you forgot to mention that Trump's biggest achievement is reforming the leftist leaning federal judiciary. While all the screaming about his antics has been going on he has appointed a LOT of federal judges who are constitutional conservatives.

[alhoon]

That is a success of the senate though. I am not sure I would count it. But OK, let's count that as his successes. Indeed, he managed to stuff the federal judiciary with conservatives, blocking the progressives from completely dominating everything. I think it was handed to him by the senate, but still, it may count.

[Gromovnik]

Trump's successes are huge. They are tremendous. Trump's successes are some of the greatest successes ever.

[priam11]

Not feeling the "Major Wars" part.

Trump ran on a platform of nonintervention and getting out of the endless military conflicts that the US has enrolled itself since 1945, most of without Congressional approval. Currently the US is officially fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Niger, and Yemen. (probably missing a few). He screwed over the Kurds without actually getting out of Syria. Troops are there, he just moved them around and made things worse in the region.

And the joint bill to stop support of military aid and involvement in Saudi's literal genocide in Yemen? Trump vetoed that for the money. Trump has increased military spending in his years if office, not reigning it in.

The al-Baghdadi thing is a perfect example of how Trump blows things up on himself. He could have just went out there, announced they got him, went over how bad this guy was (which he was) and did the victory lap but in typical Trumpian fashion he makes it about him by literally said the guy was tough to catch because he …"knew how to use the internet better than anyone else in the world perhaps but Donald Trump." lol.

The guy just cant' help himself but to embellish things in a manner that give no practical advantage and instead of letting the act stand on it's own.

P.S.

Still my favorite is "...I call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog..".

[Prodromos]

- Under Trump illegal immigration keeps being lowered. Of course, I had to do some search through various articles about Trump-the-butcher to get to one that mentions inside the article, not at the title that illegal immigrations in USA is at the lowest it has been for 13 years.
Do I think Trump went too far with the separation of children from their families? Yes. Do I think there were cheaper and more effective ways to combat illegal immigration than what he has done so far, or the wall? Yes.
But what Trump did worked. Sure, it could have worked better. But USA illegal immigration is at a 13 years low. That's a success for Trump.

That's not really news. The number of illegal immigrants in the country peaked in 2007 and has been ticking down since, at more or less the same rate under Trump as under Obama. It's mainly because Mexico is richer now and there's less incentive for Mexicans to cross the border looking for work. On the other hand, illegal immigration from other countries has increased under Trump, and partly due to Trump's policies, which make legal immigration more difficult, effectively incentivizing illegal immigration.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump has actually done incredibly little to reduce illegal immigration. His policies are aimed almost entirely at stopping legal immigration; asylum seekers, refugees, temporary workers, tourists, and so on. These policies are rooted in a nativist secular nationalism, a modern import from the Old World, which is deeply repulsive and unAmerican, there's nothing conservative about it. Contrary to popular belief, conservatism isn't about owning the libs, it's about preserving the ideals of the Founding. The Founders would be disgusted by Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.

I can't really think of many Trump accomplishments besides tax cuts, judges, Israel, and some minor socially conservative policies. The trouble with Trump's accomplishments is that, 1) any other Republican would've done the same; 2) they're far outweighed by Trump's bad policies; and 3) they're done almost exclusively by executive fiat, which means the next president could repeal them just as easily. They're very short-term victories at best.

Overall, if you actually care about America and conservatism, Trump's presidency is a massive disappointment and has done far more harm than good.

[alhoon]

Not feeling the "Major Wars" part.

Trump ran on a platform of nonintervention and getting out of the endless military conflicts that the US has enrolled itself since 1945, most of without Congressional approval. Currently the US is officially fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Niger, and Yemen. (probably missing a few). He screwed over the Kurds without actually getting out of Syria. Troops are there, he just moved them around and made things worse in the region.

And the joint bill to stop support of military aid and involvement in Saudi's literal genocide in Yemen? Trump vetoed that for the money. Trump has increased military spending in his years if office, not reigning it in.

The al-Baghdadi thing is a perfect example of how Trump blows things up on himself. He could have just went out there, announced they got him, went over how bad this guy was (which he was) and did the victory lap but in typical Trumpian fashion he makes it about him by literally said the guy was tough to catch because he …"knew how to use the internet better than anyone else in the world perhaps but Donald Trump." lol.

The guy just cant' help himself but to embellish things in a manner that give no practical advantage and instead of letting the act stand on it's own.

P.S.

Still my favorite is "...I call it a dog, a beautiful dog, a talented dog..".

Wait, USA is still in Syria? And Trump Vetoed the Saudi thing, didn't he just sent extra troops in Saudi Arabia to help them keep their own population safe from reprisals while freeing up more Saudi troops to slaughter Yemenis with?

Regardless, while USA is still involved in Afghanistan and Syria, they are less involved. Same for the other places you mentioned. Except Yemen I guess and even that is by proxy as the USA simply help Saudis destroy the infrastructure of Yemen and worsen the famine there.
Horrible as Syria situation is, at least the refugees have a way to go. Yemenis are trapped there waiting to die as it is much harder for them to escape to safe havens locked in as they are.

About Al-Baghdadi I didn't say that Trump didn't act as an ass, I said that him acting as an ass is far less important than Al Baghdadi's death.
Trump could have shown on the interview dressed like a cheerleader in blackface and said he ate Al-Baghdadi's heart personally and it would still be less important than the killing of that guy.

Prodrome:
Illegal immigration in total has gone down though. Sure it increased from other places but in total it is down. And as you said, legal immigration is also down. It is unamerican yes, but it's what his voters wanted. It was all about "They took our jobs". Whether the person taking the job is a Bolivian illegal taking the late-hours job in the gas station or the highly trained Indian computer scientist, his people wanted less of them. And he delivered.
Sure, sure, the next step is turning the Statue of Liberty to Statue of America and changing the song with "Supreme Leader Trump doesn't want you here, go away or I will hit you with my torch, and it's a big torch, a beautiful torch."

But yes, Trump was successful in reducing illegal immigration and as you said legal immigration. He said "America First" and he meant it. If his people don't like it ... they have their chance to say it next year.

Also, keep a good trend going for 12 years is an achievement. It takes more effort to reduce immigration from years 10-12 than from years 3-5 for example. Same with economic growth. Sustaining an economic growth of 2-4% per year for 3 years on top of 7 years of such trends is not easy.

[conon394]

I would say he has succeeded spectacularly in recent days with consent refrain about why we are still in Syria... The Oil. In one fell swoop he managed to confirm for millions of people their believe that the oil is all the US cared about (oh and Israel). For that the Iraq war was an epic blunder and the management of the occupation about as bad as it could be, the Bush adm at least was careful to bend over backwards to make sure Iraqi oil money was insulated from US control to prevent validating conspiracy talk. But not Trump he succeeding in making sure no US government going forward for a generation will live down talk that we are involved in the middle east for anything other than mercenary control of oil. And realistically to day when you add his adding troop to the House of Saud deployment and saying (with out any reality) they will be paid for by the odious house of Saud. He has made that conspiracy theory fact we are now just mercenaries for oil.

[alhoon]

Since USA was after all trading with ISIS for oil, it was not a conspiracy theory. I had to apologize to certain anti-Americans that were telling me the USA military was partially in kahoots with ISIS, practically stealing the oil of Syria, that it wasn't just Turkey that smuggled it. I called them loonatics pointing on USA bombing the heck out of ISIS and how absurd it was.
They were right, I was wrong. Apparently USA's military (even from Obama's days) had no qualms to bomb ISIS on one front and smuggle the oil from them from the other front giving them money to continue their war.

Trump eliminated ISIS and kept stealing the oil with the help of the Kurds.
But it was not a success.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

But it was not a success.

But is it winning? He said he was going to "bring troops home". All he did was re-shuffle them, and send even extra to KSA.

[alhoon]

He said he was going to "bring troops home". All he did was re-shuffle them, and send even extra to KSA.

That's a good question. Are more, less or the same amount of USA soldiers outside USA borders at the time than there were 3 years ago?

[priam11]

About Al-Baghdadi I didn't say that Trump didn't act as an ass, I said that him acting as an ass is far less important than Al Baghdadi's death.
Trump could have shown on the interview dressed like a cheerleader in blackface and said he ate Al-Baghdadi's heart personally and it would still be less important than the killing of that guy.

I get that but that is the problem with Trump

(or at least one of many)

and because he makes this about himself in often the most absurd and clumsy ways, therefore the focus shifts on to him and it really shouldn't. He deliberately shifts the optics onto himself so it is not surprising that the conversation flows to him and not the original act that started this conversation.

But really if we want to speak of the AL-Baghdadi killing as an accomplishment of his presidency well lets see what Trump think of that idea.

On October 22, 2012, Trump tweeted

Stop congratulating Obama for killing Bin Laden. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden

[B. W.]

That's not really news. The number of illegal immigrants in the country peaked in 2007 and has been ticking down since, at more or less the same rate under Trump as under Obama. It's mainly because Mexico is richer now and there's less incentive for Mexicans to cross the border looking for work. On the other hand, illegal immigration from other countries has increased under Trump, and partly due to Trump's policies, which make legal immigration more difficult, effectively incentivizing illegal immigration.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Trump has actually done incredibly little to reduce illegal immigration. His policies are aimed almost entirely at stopping legal immigration; asylum seekers, refugees, temporary workers, tourists, and so on. These policies are rooted in a nativist secular nationalism, a modern import from the Old World, which is deeply repulsive and unAmerican, there's nothing conservative about it. Contrary to popular belief, conservatism isn't about owning the libs, it's about preserving the ideals of the Founding. The Founders would be disgusted by Trump's anti-immigrant agenda.

I can't really think of many Trump accomplishments besides tax cuts, judges, Israel, and some minor socially conservative policies. The trouble with Trump's accomplishments is that, 1) any other Republican would've done the same; 2) they're far outweighed by Trump's bad policies; and 3) they're done almost exclusively by executive fiat, which means the next president could repeal them just as easily. They're very short-term victories at best.

Overall, if you actually care about America and conservatism, Trump's presidency is a massive disappointment and has done far more harm than good.

Just so you know, there were zero third world "refugees" resettled in the US in the month of October.

Also, it seems you're so steeped in mainstream media narratives that you are unaware that Trump has been busy since day one eliminating hundreds of onerous anti-business regulations; that is the reason the economy is doing so well.

[alhoon]

I get that but that is the problem with Trump

(or at least one of many)

and because he makes this about himself in often the most absurd and clumsy ways, therefore the focus shifts on to him and it really shouldn't. He deliberately shifts the optics onto himself so it is not surprising that the conversation flows to him and not the original act that started this conversation.

Well, I was kinda open that much of the problem for Trump's negative portrayal starts with Trump being acting as an attention-prostitute.

On October 22, 2012, Trump tweeted
Stop congratulating Obama for killing Bin Laden. The Navy Seals killed Bin Laden

Trump was right. But for the Navy Seals to get there and kill OBL a lot happened and for those Obama deserves some of the credit.

[Cyclops]

I agree Trump's successes are under-reported in more than half the US media. There are few balanced sources (PBS seems to talk less outright nonsense than most) and the majority are biased toward the Democrats. The Republican's media outlets (chiefly FOX I guess) show their own silly bias as well.

Getting out of Syria was a good move. There was no way to do it clean, and while there have been blunders I don't see how it could have been done better without Jesus or Allah making a personal appearance. People are moaning about the Kurds, they were used like this during Desert Storm as well and the criticism was less because the President was more boring.

Trump has played disruptor in some other foreign affairs matters (most notably North Korea) but has shown little real progress beyond photo ops. Nevertheless he tried a different approach, and may still bear fruit.

Trump does contribute to negative reporting with an abrasive style and insisting he wont be fairly dealt with, and using social media in a way that leaves old media out of the loop.

I think criticism of Trump is part of the political game, and he does not get enough heat for things that he really should such as tax evasion and political corruption because members of both sides indulge in this extensively and no one powerful wants it brought up.

Obama faced similar silly opposition: "Black Man Bad" might as well have been FOX's by line. Obama was grilled for being Kenyan (wtf? Trump got halfway to the Whitehouse on that nonsense) and not for bailing out Wall Street at the expense of the US taxpayer or spying on his own citizens. He was way smoother than Trump, seems like a nice chap personally but he did a lot of evil and the consequences have been deification on one side and hatred for no good reason on the other.

US politics is a dance where the voters are encouraged to get angry about silly issues, so they don't look at their system and think "what if we tore that part down?"

[Gromovnik]

Imagine thinking nationalism is unamerican.

[conon394]

Getting out of Syria was a good move. There was no way to do it clean, and while there have been blunders I don't see how it could have been done better without Jesus or Allah making a personal appearance. People are moaning about the Kurds, they were used like this during Desert Storm as well and the criticism was less because the President was more boring.

You missed the bit where the US is just a band of mercenary looters now and still in Syria.

I don't see how it could have been done better without Jesus or Allah making a personal appearance. People are moaning about the Kurds

Glad Truman did not think that way or we could have just washed our hands an walked away from the ROK and Taiwan.

[alhoon]

You missed the bit where the US is just a band of mercenary looters now and still in Syria.



Glad Truman did not think that way or we could have just washed our hands an walked away from the ROK and Taiwan.

Why would it be bad for USA if they have washed their hands off Taiwan?

[conon394]

Why would it be bad for USA if they have washed their hands off Taiwan?

It got to miss the cultural revolution (and no doubt a tough- to extremely unpleasant reckoning if Mao over ran the place back in the day). Not going to defend how it was in the beginning, but now it is certainly more democratic than china and more prosperous.

[Cyclops]

You missed the bit where the US is just a band of mercenary looters now and still in Syria.

I must have. Are the US forces still there? Long term disengagement from the region and the forever wars would be a good thing, and I cant see it happening without blood spilt and accusations made. Not even the very diplomatically adept Bush Snr got out clean.

Glad Truman did not think that way or we could have just washed our hands an walked away from the ROK and Taiwan.

Both are examples of Stalin handing the US a live grenade and walking away with the pin. I have to agree about Taiwan, most lilkely Mao would have spilt blood there but its not the US (anymore than Mogadishu is, or Lebanon or Iraq or Vietnam). Korea was put through pointless torture, and for many decades the South was arguably worse than the North with assassinations of Rhee's opponents, reeducation camps and starvation. I think he mid 1980's (post Rhee) was the tipping point. I think the peninsual is still at war because Rhee refused to sign the armistice, is that right?

From the US POV I'd say the legacy of having to defend the forward positions in Taiwan and Korea may give Japan more security but has made cooperation or even just living with China very difficult. Its been a decades long win for the Soviets/Russia and still paying dividends.