Nick Giorgetti: Alrighty Pavle, let’s talk about Trump’s first eight months in the White House, coming up on the 20th. His presidency isn’t even a year in, and he has nothing to show for himself.

Pavle Djokic: You know, I disagree. President Trump has already gone through with many of his campaign promises, including a refugee ban, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, and a newly proposed health care bill. Trump has done all of this along with growth rates that surpass any of the eight years under Obama, and at this point it has been the Democrats in Congress hampering progress.

Nick: Okay, our President has carried his refugee ban, only to be blocked by a judge every single time because they deem it to be unconstitutional (not to mention also immoral, betraying our long-lasting “melting pot” ethos). The U.S. pulling out of the Paris Agreement is cataclysmic. Trump’s defense for leaving was that it would help taxpayers and bring jobs back to the U.S., but in reality, pulling out of the accords will do none of that and will only hurt the U.S. and the world. Climate change is a global problem, and it’s selfish of the U.S., the second biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, to not take responsibility for its actions and to commit to preventing climate change.

In response to your position on Trump’s health care bill, his bills are a joke. He never lays out a comprehensible plan for anything. He could not sell his bill to all of the Republicans, which is why three voted against it. Trump cannot rally the total support of his own party and has alienated himself from prominent Republicans, such as Senator John McCain, whom Trump insulted by claiming that the Vietnam veteran was no war hero — despite the fact that McCain was a POW who was tortured by the Viet Cong while Trump was probably partying in Manhattan. Oh, and the growth rates are at an all-time high because the Obama Administration set this country up for success, and economic trends carry over.  

Pavle: Actually, this week the travel ban was finally upheld by the Supreme Court, allowing 24,000 refugees to be blocked from settling in the US, after the California-based District 9 court obstructed the move. Moreover, your assessment that the United States has always been a “melting pot” is false, considering that the provision of the travel ban is actually the 65-year-old federal Immigration and Nationality Act. The constitutional question is not if a travel ban is allowed, but if the courts believe that Muslims are unfairly targeted. While it is true that all six countries are mostly Muslim-populated nations, the reality is that only 15% of the world’s Muslim population is targeted, and the other 85% can freely travel to the US.  

Frankly, I have to agree with you on the topic of health care. While I believe Obamacare was a terrible decision by the previous administration and needed to go, the current administration needed to have a working plan to repeal and replace that at least all the Republicans could agree on. However, I must commend the President for attempting to go through on his campaign promises.

With climate, I would be perfectly willing to go into a situation where air control is fairly regulated for all countries, including China, India, and other top greenhouse gas-creating nations; however, I do not think the Paris Agreement fulfilled that objective and thus it would be yet another unfair regulation on the United States economy. Speaking of the economy, I do think that Obama did well to bring us out of the recession, but it was Trump cutting regulations and promising to lower taxes that has allowed us to continue to grow after the recovery phase ended.

Nick: The travel ban can be blocked by any circuit court judge at any time (history has repeated itself and will continue to do so). And I think it’s wrong to ban anyone’s entrance into the US unless under extreme circumstances — US deaths from terrorism are practically nonexistent. It is statistically more likely to die from choking on food. The typical American is six times more likely to be killed by a shark than a terrorist. So why Trump keeps on insisting upon a travel ban from these countries that don’t pose a threat is beyond me. Maybe he never studied statistics and charts or chooses to ignore them.   

And in response to your campaign promises comment, Trumps has failed most of them. Whether it’s the classic “build a wall and make Mexico pay for it” comment, repeal Obamacare, defund Planned Parenthood, leave NATO, prosecute and incarcerate Hillary Clinton, approve waterboarding and violent torture, or budget to rebuild U.S. infrastructure, Trump has failed to deliver on many of his key promises or has flip-flopped his position on major issues many times.  

Pavle: In the context of two major hurricanes hitting the United States in under two weeks, displacing hundreds of thousands of Americans, and causing over $140 billion dollars of damage so far, we need to focus on our own citizens before accepting and spending money on the settlement of refugees from around the world. Furthermore, the six countries that President Trump picked out were actually the same ones the Obama Administration pointed out as the six most dangerous nations towards the United States. As the President said, it is a temporary travel ban to figure out what needs to be done in relation to these countries. And the 90 days is almost up, so what’s left to be said must wait until we see what the current administration will do then.

While some things like prosecuting Hillary Clinton or approving waterboarding would have only made things worse in this country (and I am personally glad the President has changed his mind on), he has convinced many NATO countries to up their defense spending, he has put forth an alternative health care bill, and many of the regulations he has cut do in fact help infrastructure. While we may disagree with what constitutes completing a campaign promise, I do believe the administration has had some good moments and rough ones in these first eight months. Only time will tell how this whole mess turns out.

Nick: Well, I’m glad to see that you acknowledge the present situation as a “whole mess”. I agree with you that a good chunk of funding should go to disaster relief. But still, that shouldn’t hinder America from focusing on other domestic and foreign issues.

Pavle, it is a fallacy to compare President Obama’s immigration policy to Trump’s. Times were different. Obama placed a ban on the countries you listed because of a specific, credible threat — the actual Bowling Green incident. Two Iraqi men were convicted of trying to get weapons and money from the U.S. to al Qaeda in Iraq. They were also convicted of helping al Qaeda plan and execute attacks on U.S. troops stationed and fighting in Iraq. Obviously, this is a credible threat and Obama made the right decision by only delaying Iraqi refugees for six months. Some refugees were still processed during this time period, and no one from those countries was banned from entering the United States. On the other hand, Trump wants to instate a full ban on all citizens of said countries who wish to enter the U.S. Note that Trump’s ban is not in response to a threat those countries. Therefore, Trump’s travel ban is unnecessary and harsh and it is a fallacy to compare apples to oranges (in this case, Obama’s policy to Trump’s).  

I do not believe Trump has fulfilled the bulk of his promises and does not hold the same values and interests as the bulk of the American populace.  

Nevertheless, Pavle, you made some good points, argued well, and it was nice debating with you. I hope to do it again soon. Thank you for your time.

Pavle: Thank you very much and I hope we can do this again. You are a true Even Match.