any time someone brings up policy previous to trump's (most often obama) in argument they run the immediate risk of the new liberal powershield that is 'whataboutism.'
'hey, obama is not president now'...'man, we aren't talking about the past, we are talking about now!'
the main problem with this (other than it ignores the few good things trump has attempted -i.e. softening relations with russia and trying [at least] to withdraw from syria; and the vast array of very horrible things he is doing re: parks, natural resources, preservation, clean energy, economic disenfranchisement through tax cuts for the wealthy, record military spending and use thereof, etc) is that the only real argument the average democrat has against trump is that he is some sort of aberration from the norm. they are now praising bush and his considerate approach - embracing kissinger like children on santa's lap, and endorsing the deepest thoughts that only a mind such as mitt romney's was thought capable of forming. seriously; they are. but aside from the fact that their entire narrative rests on little more than a less fashionable version of the emperor's new clothes, they're most certainly not allowed to destroy the rules of argument.
if your entire point is that trump is different from every other president before him, how can you berate any response of comparison to the most recent, or any other previous administration? how is it that obama era pictures of children in cages are not relevant when you both bring them to the debate (mistakenly), and then want to say things like this are the sole fault of a single current leader (whom we both agree not to be fond of regarding most policy).
this is not a defense of trump. it is an indictment of the type of argument and debate that ends up with trump as even an option. the single party system of democrats and republicans simultaneously funding a perpetual war anywhere there are resources we want is self-sustaining only through the fanatical team mentality that has been bred into us through sport, education, job training and pretty much everything else in our day to day lives. it leads to being simple in arguing, and directly to making excuses for closing off debate (i.e. 'i'm not even responding to you because you brought up something i do not consider relevant, as it regards a previous administration - end of story').
don't make broad incorrect statements about how trump is the only president in history to have done things (see a.jackson for an example of racism that may exceed the current administration's, or numerous others when highlighting any of trump's particular horrors; they have all been equaled or exceeded, and yes, that does matter), and nobody will have to dredge up past presidents engaging in the same activity. perhaps even try fighting him on policy rather than personality - he is not an alien demon, as much as his appetites and activities would indicate otherwise. this will include getting over 2016, and learning a few things about fair debate. first is what to expect when you say one thing is so different than all other things before it; inevitable comparison with things before it. peace.
