Trump’s Failures, According to Trump Supporters

 

This is a thread for those of us who generally support Donald Trump and his presidency to discuss his failings. I would ask that Trump opponents please do not post here, since we already know what you dislike about the man.

I think it is important to document what we see as his mistakes so we can avoid them in the future.

One of the bigger failures in his COVID campaign was not letting scientists/physicians discuss scientific findings for him, since they can be precise and technical, while he is relaxed and acting as the everyman leader. This could have prevented a number of scandals. Also, have Fauci and company explain themselves better. The mask-or-not-to-mask flip-flop, excessive social regulations, and the excusing of protests destroyed public trust in public health.

He also missed the chance to push for long-lasting reforms, like destroying “certificate of need” rules.

Trump also massively failed in underestimating just how deep the swamp went. He ended up cycling through a lot of people needlessly – get the mass firing out of the way on day one.

Published in Politics
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 144 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    I always chuckled at the “maverick” label that was given to McCain. There was nothing brave, bold or unique about him.

    I tend to “break down” John McCain to separate his military service from his career as a politician.

    As a politician (especially as a Presidential candidate) he was a disaster; as a pilot (and POW), I do not question his bravery.

    Good comment. No one is 100% anything, and it’s possible to like and respect someone for some things and still believe they do damage in others. This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic. 

    • #121
  2. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic.

    I never cared for the label “Never Trumper” either. We never called people names in the past who did not support their party’s candidate.  We discussed the merits of their opposition instead.

    • #122
  3. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic.

    I never cared for the label “Never Trumper” either. We never called people names in the past who did not support their party’s candidate. We discussed the merits of their opposition instead.

    Not sure it fits in the category of calling people names. My impression is that most “Never Trumpers” wear the label with pride.

    • #123
  4. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Freeven (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    I always chuckled at the “maverick” label that was given to McCain. There was nothing brave, bold or unique about him.

    I tend to “break down” John McCain to separate his military service from his career as a politician.

    As a politician (especially as a Presidential candidate) he was a disaster; as a pilot (and POW), I do not question his bravery.

    Good comment. No one is 100% anything, and it’s possible to like and respect someone for some things and still believe they do damage in others. This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic.

    Exactly.  It’s quite easy to sit and pass judgement but who knows what we would do if we were getting the holy h*ll beat out of us on a daily basis?

    • #124
  5. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Never Trump is effectively pro-Democrat. They have an extreme misreading of the landscape or they are just trying to selfishly keep a lifestyle up.

    • #125
  6. OldPhil Coolidge
    OldPhil
    @OldPhil

    OldPhil (View Comment):
    Fauci is [redacted profanity].

    l

    • #126
  7. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Freeven (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    JamesSalerno (View Comment):

    I always chuckled at the “maverick” label that was given to McCain. There was nothing brave, bold or unique about him.

    I tend to “break down” John McCain to separate his military service from his career as a politician.

    As a politician (especially as a Presidential candidate) he was a disaster; as a pilot (and POW), I do not question his bravery.

    Good comment. No one is 100% anything, and it’s possible to like and respect someone for some things and still believe they do damage in others. This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic.

    Exactly.  Not “all” of the planes he crashed were entirely his fault.

    • #127
  8. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    Freeven (View Comment):

    This is why I’ve never been “pro-Trump” or “anti-Trump.” It’s just too simplistic.

    I never cared for the label “Never Trumper” either. We never called people names in the past who did not support their party’s candidate. We discussed the merits of their opposition instead.

    I think the problem was that NT largely couldn’t move past personality, so they got the label. I don’t think every Trump critic got the label, but the ones that engaged in certain hyperbolic criticisms did. Most NTers never even bothered with policy discussion. Some did, but others decidedly did not.

    • #128
  9. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Stina (View Comment):

    Most NTers never even bothered with policy discussion. Some did, but others decidedly did not.

    This is ***e v e r y t h i n g***. 

    This is probably excessively simple, but focus on two things: policy and handling the media, leftist takeover of institutions etc. 

    I have a very low opinion of 80% of the Never Trumper’s for this reason. 

    Populism and Socialism are problematic for actual reasons. Figure it out or shut up.

    JMO

    • #129
  10. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    I realize nobody gets this, but this is why you need to reevaluate simplistic and  idealistic libertarianism and conservatism right now.

    https://mises.org/ko/library/parallel-lives-liberty-or-power?fbclid=IwAR2NCY1p_wdDIqp4EkSjEwZ_E4A-ZxFpvswt5JkDXcFov_lL1GYOO2AV8aE 

    But what the Rand episode further illustrates is actually terribly unflattering for Greenspan. It is bad enough for a person to cravenly seek power while remaining in ignorance. But as Greenspan revealed in his 1966 article called “Gold and Economic Freedom,” he actually knew the truth. He knew that the Fed creates business cyles — he wrote this in his article, even getting the story of the Great Depression right. He knew that fiat money builds the state. He said that gold is the only monetary guarantee of freedom.

     

    What was behind all of this? Essentially, he proved himself adept at serving the state whenever it needed help. Politicians used Greenspan as what Sheehan calls their “air-raid shelter.” He did them a favor and they returned it by appointing him again and again, and they fawned over him as no one has ever been fawned over. And it’s no wonder. He was history’s biggest counterfeiter.

     

    Ayn Rand speculated that this undertaker might just be a social climber. She did not and could not have known that he would eventually climb his way to the top, fall all the way down, and while he was writhing in pain would betray the entire cause to which he pretended devotion. But anyone who looked at his life could see the pattern. It was not a complex one. He served the state. As Rothbard himself wrote of Greenspan, “Greenspan’s real qualification is that he can be trusted never to rock the establishment’s boat.” Indeed he served the establishment from the first day to the last.

     

    Greenspan will leave an economy in shambles and a lifetime of pandering. Rothbard left a grand vision of liberty united with science, an example of what it means to truly think long term.

    In all ages and in all times, people must make a choice. Will we accept the world as it is and try to fit in, getting as much as we can from the system until we bow out? Or will we stick to principle, pay whatever price that involves, and leave the world a better place? I submit to you that anyone who has ever truly loved liberty has chosen the second course. That is the course that the Mises Institute is dedicated to following. May we each make that choice too.

    cc: @garyrobbins

    • #130
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Skyler (View Comment):

    RyanFalcone (View Comment):
    However, I hope someone rises up to take over Trump’s platform (plus cutting the budget), without his faults.

    I don’t agree with any of the “faults” you listed, especially regarding McCain, but leaving that aside, what makes you think they would treat any other republican candidate better? Still the biggest complaint against Trump is that he is racist, and all the real evidence points to the exact opposite. There is no one that will be treated better and they won’t even come close to breaking through the media filters to put out a message.

    Exactly. This is why I’ve been droning on and on about the radical propaganda and censorship. It’s impossible to assess the degree to which any of his supposed personal faults are real, unique (as compared to the average), or even significant without acknowledging and assessing the propaganda. The idea that Trump should be a pariah while Biden is some kind of normal or acceptable makes this silliness plain when these people are compared side by side in just about any measure.

    I’ve noticed that on-line pictures accompanying articles are often years out of date, but the postures and facial expressions of the pictures, essentially “frame” the thrust of the article, and induce and particularize, the reader’s emotions.

    Sharyl Attkisson, I believe, said that everything that is presented in print and on-line is specifically and in detail configured to unconsciously present a particular point of view.

    Considering these things, I think that it is fair to say that nothing that has been presented by the mega-corporate Press is without a designed effect on both the left and the right, and has a pronounced effect even on the knowledgeable and the otherwise skeptical.

    It would make sense that a great deal of the opinions we all have, on the left and the right, are instilled unconsciously in everyone’s minds, by promoting a view and a underlying narrative and apparent facts that actually bear little to no relationship to the truth.

    Just as the “fine people” and the “armed insurrection” narratives are lies among many which half the country believes, so may be the scope and effect of flaws in Trump’s personality, intelligence, and policies be programmed into everyone’s thinking on a subconscious level.

    Thus people so often say, “I know he’s flawed, but…” or “Of course, his ego is too outsized, but…” or “He never cared about [such and such].”

    There are very few, perhaps only two, people who I’ve heard or read that gave what appeared to be an unbiased and reasonable explanation of Trump, and who he was in office, and how he made decisions, and did things.  And even these two people, Patrick Byrne and Steve Bannon, have outsized egos themselves, and might be considered biased, except they were there, and involved, and describe their experiences granularly and in detail.

    • #131
  12. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    His biggest failing, he thought that saying something should be so, would make it so.

    He accomplished quite a bit. But he also made extravagant, nay, unrealistic, promises.

    He gave his enemies lots of ammo.

    Exactly. I recently learned that he went to Norman Vincent Peale’s church. I think as a child and he was married there. The power of positive thinking. Speak the reality you want to exist into existence. By extension, bluster and browbeat your way through life. Trump’s ego isn’t just bigger than the average person’s. It’s qualitatively different. In the back of his mind I think there’s a tape playing on an endless loop: Yes yes yes, win win win, me me me.

    I know there’s a place for speculation especially in this thread, but I think this is beyond speculation. You don’t actually know what’s in his mind or how big his ego is. I’m sure we’ve all seen blustery blowhards getting ahead in some ways, but I don’t agree that this can take you all the way, let alone all the way in three highly competitive fields (real estate, TV, politics).

    I think there are failures we can talk about that don’t require mindreading.

    • #132
  13. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    WilliamDean (View Comment):

    Trump never missed an opportunity to punch down on someone who irked him, making himself look small and petty and raising the stature of nobodies who would otherwise have been ignored. Too often he allowed personal slights, piques, and vendettas to distract him from sound arguments that could have brought more people to his side.

    His base wanted a champion, and were willing to settle for a loud talking bully, and that’s what they got. But most people don’t like bullies. And most bullies back down when they’re challenged for real. Trump did a lot of that too during his tenure.

    The speculative mind reading aside, you’re not accounting for the pervasive propaganda and, more recently, censorship. Also, there is an apparent divide on the right over how to respond to the constant barrage we receive. If gritting our teeth and turning the other cheek had been shown to work then I’d be all for it. It doesn’t work in politics, though. Andrew Breitbart knew this, and one of the big reasons he was beloved is precisely because he never missed an opportunity to punch back. He was showing us that all we had to do was to push back and they’d fall right over. Yet few followed the lead. President Trump followed that lead.

    • #133
  14. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    He held on too long to the election is stolen narrative past the point when it was useful.  I think this did probably contribute to the losses in GA; however, objectively we had bad candidates there, so that can’t entirely be laid at his feet.   At some point he was going to have to pivot and talk about solutions for the next fight because we were never going the win this one.  That wasted a few valuable opportunities.   Also by engaging in puffery, which is his usual wont, it weakened his arguments about election fraud and reform.  Election reform is going to be a critical issue.  He could have had a valuable place in that discussion; however, he squandered that opportunity by holding on too long and making a few claims that are really to hard to prove.  For the record I do believe he lost by fraud, I don’t believe it was a landslide.  I think he had a narrow victory stolen from him in a few key counties in MI, PA, GA, and AZ.

    • #134
  15. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    He held on too long to the election is stolen narrative past the point when it was useful.

    Seems it’s pretty useful yet.  I hope he never lets it go.  Unless he and others keep it up, there will be no reform.

    • #135
  16. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Skyler (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    He held on too long to the election is stolen narrative past the point when it was useful.

    Seems it’s pretty useful yet. I hope he never lets it go. Unless he and others keep it up, there will be no reform.

    I think election integrity needs to be an issue and I think he made a good pitch for that at CPAC.   I don’t object to him making an issue out of it throughout November.  After the electoral college met and the safe harbor period had passed nothing was going to change for 2020.   At that point the election was stolen and it wasn’t going to get overturned, to do so what have lead to chaos.   It was then that Trump and the republicans needed to get onto a full message to stop this from happening again.  Because of his puffery, which allowed legitimate concerns to be dismissed and the lack of coherent plan and leadership.  I think that time was lost.  Also I think it contributed to a defeat in GA senate runoffs.   I think this is an important fight to have.  I just don’t think his tactics were at the time particularly helpful.  Fortunately the democrats and big tech’s overreach on this issue I think is creating the smoke to allow us a second bite.  Also it is impossible to mount a pro election fraud campaign, so the democrat will have their work cut out for them defending that.   

    • #136
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I think that time was lost. Also I think it contributed to a defeat in GA senate runoffs.

    The election was stolen and they got away with it, and yet a month later the elections were honest?  And we lost it because Trump and the Republicans argued there was election fraud?  What made the fraud stop between November and December?

    • #137
  18. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I think that time was lost. Also I think it contributed to a defeat in GA senate runoffs.

    The election was stolen and they got away with it, and yet a month later the elections were honest? And we lost it because Trump and the Republicans argued there was election fraud? What made the fraud stop between November and December?

    Nothing necessarily but the fall off in votes were in Trump areas, so he had the effect of suppressing or dispiriting his people.  We could have set up procedures to make sure there was a lot more scrutiny on the runoff, but we didn’t do those things.  These are tactical decisions I think were poor and had an impact.  Republicans always have to overcome a margin of fraud.  Trump tactically didn’t help the situation, and didn’t really advance the ball on election security.  In fact I think he hurt his case by engaging in puffery.  The candidates themselves didn’t help much either, so they aren’t absolved of blame.  It was a mistake though for Trump or at least a missed opportunity.  Plus his case would have been much stronger if he had flooded the zone with poll watchers and lawyers and the runoff had gone the Republican’s way.

    • #138
  19. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I don’t object to him making an issue out of it throughout November. After the electoral college met and the safe harbor period had passed nothing was going to change for 2020. At that point the election was stolen and it wasn’t going to get overturned, to do so what have lead to chaos. It was then that Trump and the republicans needed to get onto a full message to stop this from happening again. Because of his puffery

    I agree in concept. However, the Republicans could have jumped onto the election integrity full message train any time they wanted. They didn’t though, and they were never going to jump onto it, less so if Trump hadn’t made such a stink and even minimally informed the base – otherwise we would have been fed the propaganda that all was well. Instead the Republicans jumped onto the stay quiet and hope no one notices you train, then they transferred to the 1/6 was insurrection train. 

    • #139
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    We could have set up procedures to make sure there was a lot more scrutiny on the runoff, but we didn’t do those things. These are tactical decisions I think were poor and had an impact. Republicans always have to overcome a margin of fraud.

    I really disagree, though I have no absolute proof that the election was stolen.  But perhaps absolute proof is impossible, or it has been expunged, or the evidence presenters silenced.  But I sure do believe that there was massive, multi-faceted election theft.  And it seems to me that the margin of fraud dwarfs any past voter fraud that I’ve ever heard about for the past hundred years at least.

    But even if I’m wrong about fraud, if even today Arizona won’t comply with the legislature’s subpoenas to turn over ballots, what would make anyone think that Georgia could be made to change its election system by anyone but the governor?  And after the death of his daughter’s boyfriend (with the suicide of the investigating GBI officer 3 days later) Kemp reversed himself on verifying ballots in the recount, essentially making the recount pointless.  It think they would have stonewalled all immediate election reforms just as Arizona is still stonewalling producing ballots.

    • #140
  21. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    I don’t object to him making an issue out of it throughout November. After the electoral college met and the safe harbor period had passed nothing was going to change for 2020. At that point the election was stolen and it wasn’t going to get overturned, to do so what have lead to chaos. It was then that Trump and the republicans needed to get onto a full message to stop this from happening again. Because of his puffery

    I agree in concept. However, the Republicans could have jumped onto the election integrity full message train any time they wanted. They didn’t though, and they were never going to jump onto it, less so if Trump hadn’t made such a stink and even minimally informed the base – otherwise we would have been fed the propaganda that all was well. Instead the Republicans jumped onto the stay quiet and hope no one notices you train, then they transferred to the 1/6 was insurrection train.

    This I agree with.  It was a fine line Trump had to walk.  I think he made a good start on it at CPAC.  I think he made some tactical missteps in messaging.  I gave him the benefit of the doubt in early December but, I don’t think December 10th thru January 6th helped much at all in terms of advancing election security or his ability to run effectively in 2024.  I think he actually hurt himself in both of these areas by not pivoting toward stopping the next steal and focusing on the last one.  There was never any world were the election results were going to be overturned after the electoral college met.  He was fighting a losing battle and using losing tactics.  If it had worked and the GA runoff was won or if something had broken through maybe it would have been worth it.  It is an important fight to have, but you can’t tell me that we or Trump accomplished anything in that time period  that advanced the cause.   Instead he came up with ever more fanciful solutions, which weren’t really practical.    He hurt himself  by doing that or, at least he didn’t help himself at all.

    • #141
  22. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Raxxalan (View Comment):
    We could have set up procedures to make sure there was a lot more scrutiny on the runoff, but we didn’t do those things. These are tactical decisions I think were poor and had an impact. Republicans always have to overcome a margin of fraud.

    I really disagree, though I have no absolute proof that the election was stolen. But perhaps absolute proof is impossible, or it has been expunged, or the evidence presenters silenced. But I sure do believe that there was massive, multi-faceted election theft. And it seems to me that the margin of fraud dwarfs any past voter fraud that I’ve ever heard about for the past hundred years at least.

    But even if I’m wrong about fraud, if even today Arizona won’t comply with the legislature’s subpoenas to turn over ballots, what would make anyone think that Georgia could be made to change its election system by anyone but the governor? And after the death of his daughter’s boyfriend (and the suicide of the investigating GBI officer 3 days later) Kemp reversed himself on verifying ballots in the recount, essentially making the recount pointless. It think they would have stonewalled all immediate election reforms just as Arizona is still stonewalling producing ballots.

    It is an unknowable.  The problem with mail in voting is that once the ballot is separated from the envelope it is essentially clean and there is no way to undo it.  That is why we need to get a handle on mail in voting.   I still think they could have put a lot more safe guards in place, meaning the candidates, Trump, and the Republicans, for the runoff.   I agree there was fraud.  I am not sure how much there was.  I don’t think Trump won in a landslide.  I think probably with out fraud he would have run narrow victories in PA, WI, MI, AZ and GA.  He alienated the suburbs and drew more support from the cities.  He had to have enough new votes from the cities to overcome the suburbs.   The problem is the cities are where the fraud happens.  I didn’t know about AZ.  Isn’t it funny how everyone appears to be afraid of sunlight in a election that had no fraud. 

    • #142
  23. RyanFalcone Member
    RyanFalcone
    @RyanFalcone

    Skyler (View Comment):

    RyanFalcone (View Comment):
    I’ll gladly vote for him a 3rd time over any Democrat. However, I hope someone rises up to take over Trump’s platform (plus cutting the budget), without his faults.

    I don’t agree with any of the “faults” you listed, especially regarding McCain, but leaving that aside, what makes you think they would treat any other republican candidate better? Still the biggest complaint against Trump is that he is racist, and all the real evidence points to the exact opposite. There is no one that will be treated better and they won’t even come close to breaking through the media filters to put out a message.

    There are no Republicans who will be treated any better than Trump. I am in complete agreement with you there. 99% of the anti-Trump rhetoric found in pop culture including the Democrat media complex are a complete fabrication. I am in complete agreement with you on that. 

    Yet Trump has his faults. That is the purpose of this thread. If you think he is focused and disciplined, well, I just don’t know what to say to you. He just isn’t. It wouldn’t have made any difference with the deranged Dems but maybe some of the more spineless R’s might’ve been less spineless. I could be wrong about McCain and Ryan and Romney. I’ll give you that. I don’t mean to suggest that their gutless nature rests at Trump’s feet.

    • #143
  24. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    RyanFalcone (View Comment):
    Yet Trump has his faults. That is the purpose of this thread. If you think he is focused and disciplined, well, I just don’t know what to say to you. He just isn’t.

    Then I guess you don’t know what to say to me.  

    However, I think even if he were “unfocused” or “undisciplined” I would question if those are indeed faults.  He doesn’t need those qualities.  Let his staff be focused. Let them grind their noses on the wheel.  A president needs to be unfocused, looking at the entire panorama, seeing everything happening and decide which direction those focused and disciplined underlings should steer.  He should be seeing the storm in the distance, he should know the purpose of the fleet’s cruise.  He doesn’t need to tie the rope on the wheel to move the rudder.  He says, “Head to that harbor,” or “Set a course for Antarctica.”  He’s not the helmsman.  He’s not even the captain.  He’s the fleet admiral telling all the captains what he wants.  He tells the signalman to hoist the flags to say, “America expects every man to do his duty,” he doesn’t tell the cannoneer how to aim.

    Have I stretched that nautical imagery far enough?

     

    • #144
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.