Harry Reid: Trump is 'amoral' and 'the worst president we've ever had'

You are most welcome! Next, you'll start a thread about Rachel Maddow and how she's a fair and unbiased journalist! lol

 

That would be the most prominent metric. He finished his failed presidency with an average annual GDP rate of 1.48%, which was .01% lower than the GDP rate during his last full year in office. Furthermore, since people began keeping track of these things, Obama is the first and only president who failed to preside over a single year of 3% GDP growth during his entire term in office. If it's any consolation, some sources say Obama shares that dubious distinction with Herbert Hoover, the president with the worst economic record of all time. Misery loves company, eh?

In light of the depth of the Great Depression those growth numbers are pathetic, which tells us that ideology, attitude and policy count. On top of that, such poor results are to be expected from a nihilistic Alinskyite whose priority was fundamentally transforming the United States of America



The economy was something Obama "pivoted" to when it became politically expedient to do so. Even Chuck Schumer confessed that the Democrats' priorities were in the wrong places during the halcyon days when they controlled Washington lock stock and barrel. Little wonder most Americans consider Democrats out of touch.

Again, given the depth of the recession the economy was bound to recover, but thanks to Obama and his policies



Fortunately, our country and its economy are stronger than Barack Obama. In spite of his policies it managed to recover at an anemic rate until the burden of his presidency and policies was lifted by his successor, and for the first time since 2005 we're probably going to see a year of 3% GDP growth.

Of course, many of us predicted this would happen in 2008 and honestly it didn't take a Nobel Prize winning economist to see it coming.

In parting, I would be remiss to fail to point out the fact that if Obama had a successful economic record Hillary Clinton would be president today, but he didn't and the American people chose a businessman to preside over our economy instead of the woman who sealed her candidacy's doom by pledging to perpetuate Obama and his party's misplaced priorities and unproductive policies.

 

I gave you a whole host of other economic indicators which would suggest that the economy performed much, much better than your myopic and limited view of GDP growth would lead you to believe. And since you intentionally edited those indicators out, I am including them again here:

Unemployment decreased by nearly 5% during his term. The Stock Market increased by nearly 170%. The private sector saw the single longest consecutive period of job growth in US history. We added nearly 11.7 million jobs. Median household income increased by 5%, home prices by 20%, the poverty rate dropped by 0.5%. Corporate profits increased by nearly 60%.

But if you want to relish in your sugar high created by the GOP tax cuts, while simultaneously ignoring the massively ballooning debt and global economic slowdown and stock market turmoil created by trump's "successful economy," then you will do whatever is necessary to maintain a happy safe space.

 

Anything negative is due to the Democrats - naturally

The current dip in the Dow is nothing to do with trade wars, the shutdown or global economic forecasts and is entirely due to the fact that the Democrats are about to take over the House.

 

You lost me when you quoted Harry Reid.

 

Thanks for the insightful contribution.

 

You are welcome.

 

The EPA, like all regulatory agencies, serves the interests of the corrupt bipartisan ruling political class.
Democrats are at least as supportive of corporatism as Republicans. The EPA was created by Republicans.

 

"Liberal", "progressive" - when used to describe the Left or elements within the Left the euphemisms are pretty much interchangeable and indistinguishable from one another, and that's probably because those terms should never be used in reference to the Left. To paraphrase George Orwell, sloppy language leads to sloppy thinking. That's why I always put scare quotes around the terms "liberal" and "progressive" when I am referring to Leftists because they are neither liberal nor progressive. When I think of liberals, I think of people like the late Jean-François Revel - classical liberals - not moderate Leftists or centrist Democrats. The European use and application of the term is accurate, not how we misuse it here in the States. As for "progressive", that is the term the Soviets used to describe their fellow socialist travelers in the West and the communists in this country still use the term today as you can see in this CPUSA article about Bernie Sanders' "political revolution" - here's an excerpt:

As you're probably aware, "progressive" is just a term that socialists hide behind to conceal their true identity from the 76% of Americans who state they will not vote for a socialist. So, socialists like Barack Obama hide behind the facade of "progressivism" to dupe the unsuspecting and/or credulous people who don't know otherwise.

All that being said, the New Left and the Democratic party have changed radically during the course of my lifetime. When I was a New Leftist many of us stood for individual freedom, not socialism, but over the years it became more socialist and subsequently more authoritarian, i.e., more Old Left, which drove liberals like me out of the New Left. This devolution of the New Left went hand-in-glove with the New Left's Long March through the Democratic party, which was originally interrupted when Henry Wallace's "progressives" marched out of the Democratic party in 1948 to form their own party

Progressive Party - United States, 1948
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1948)

but was resumed 20 years later during the Vietnam War when "progressives" began returning to the party (this was most spectacularly illustrated during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago) in order to take it over from the inside ("working within the system"), and after 50 years they managed to do just that when they elevated one of their own - Barack Obama - to the highest levels of the Democratic party and then the White House.

What I find interesting here is how it dovetails with your observation that 'they have never changed'. In many respects you are right because what happened to the New Left and the Democratic party is not a linear progression - it's a circular regression back to the past. In the case of the New Left, back to the Old Left. In the case of Democrats, back to the "progressives" who marched out of the party in 1948. What interrupted all this was the Cold War and America's struggle against the USSR and communism, but now that this struggle is out of the way the process or processes have been freed to continue along their initial trajectory and reach their ultimate destination.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

 

more than one us general military officer has said the same.

 

I noticed your "whole host of other economic indicators" the first time around, thank you, and we've all seen them before, yet as CBS inconveniently pointed out



Naturally, you're going to ignore the fact that Obama never presided over a single year of 3% GDP growth and his average annual growth rate was an abominable 1.48%, but as I pointed out, if your Failure in Chief didn't leave office with the fourth worst economic record in history Hillary Clinton, not a brash real estate tycoon from New York, would be president today.

As for the current administration's pro-growth policies I most certainly am glad to see them and the economic growth that has come with them. Furthermore, unlike the Obamunists who have suddenly and insincerely developed an aversion to the rising national debt that they completely ignored during their Dear Leader Barack's 8 years in office, I was critical of Trump and Republicans for not slashing government spending, even if the spendthrifts across the aisle who don't think the federal government has a spending problem threatened to shut down the government. However, as has all too often been the case, Republicans capitulated to the Dims and now that the Party of Big Government controls the House any hope of seeing spending cuts come out of that chamber is completely lost.

 

four years ago

Obama got elected to a second term. The economy continued to improve significantly and outpacing even the best hopes offered by Obama's opponent Romney in 2012 - who said he hoped to see unemployment to 6% by 2016, a number that was reached by 2014.

All of the economic indicators continued to improve for the next four years.

 

Yes. Republicans spent more money and cut revenue. And that's why the debt is ballooning under Trump. And whereas the previous spending under Obama served a purpose (getting us out of a recession), the current sugar high has resulted in massive stock buybacks, bonuses for CEOs, and more offshore hiring. And when the economy slows down during the next two years - and it will - Trump and the GOP will continue to do nothing.

Because they squandered an economic boom just to make the rich, richer.

 

We agree when it comes to irresponsible spending, but claiming that Dems are any different can easily be refuted by using California as an example. Here in your parties petri dish, the middle class is very small. We are the poverty capital of the US.

 

Yes, Democrats spent more money, and no, the Party of Big Government didn't give American workers and businesses a tax cut.

The debt has been ballooning for decades and it will continue to balloon until the size, scope and expense of the federal government is reversed.

Do you see the new Democratic-controlled House proposing such an initiative? How about a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Lining the pockets of Democrats and their supporters...

Individuals and businesses are spending their tax cuts on all sorts of things, which would explain why 2018 is expected to be the first year our country has seen 3% GDP since 2005 - a feat that Obama and his failed policies were incapable of achieving.

That being said, I don't care what individuals and companies spend their tax cuts on - it's their money, not your money or the federal government's money.

If the economy slows down - and I agree that it probably will, especially after the Fed's overaggressive rate hikes (the likes of which you never saw during Obama's 8 years in office) - Trump and the GOP won't be able to get any more pro-growth measures passed on account of the Democrat-controlled House. However, you can expect Dems to get back to trying to kick the economy in the nuts by proposing more tax hikes.

Riiight.

First of all, I'm not rich and I'm bringing home more money in my paycheck than I ever did while Obama was in office.

Secondly, there was no economic boom to squander. Economic growth was a paltry 1.49% during Obama's last year in office and averaged only 1.48% annual growth during his 8 years in office, which is the fourth worst of any and every president in U.S. history. Before you think of preaching at another Trumpeteer about their allegedly low standards you should raise your own - 1.48% annual GDP growth sucks, and everyone outside the Leftist sensory deprivation tank knows it.

 

Harry Reid is a fool!

 

Donald Trump is a ****ing moron!

 

Let's look a little further. With Harry as Senate Majority leader mean GDP growth never made it over 2%. With Trump as President the mean is 3% or better.....who's the ****ing moron?

 

What is "America" in your statement?

 

You obviously don't understand that there is an inner circle of gov and an outer circle. There are insiders in both parties and outsiders in both parts. Most of the outsiders are elected as Republicans. They are constantly ridiculed whether Dem or Repub.

The insiders have been waging a war because Trump has been the greatest threat to altering the status quo of the ruling class for a long, long time. Almost everything is stacked in the insiders favor, and most of the mush minds out there are their useful tools.

I did not vote for Trump, but I was somewhat hopeful that he would be able to tear down some of the barriers that the DC insiders had built. He has to some extent, but we are still a few years away from the death of legacy media controlling the narrative. However, if we can get one more big intersectional push from Dems with Nancy running the outdated divide and maintain control play, we may continue to erode the rigged rules of power maintenance.

 

The left supporting war hawks shows the glaring projection of their slander. What useful idiots.

 

I agree, they could use a bath.

 

With Trump as the self-proclaimed leader.

 

A country.

 

I hope you're right. Allowing the extreme alt-right factions continue their dictatorial rule over the Republican party is a national travesty. Trump is a historic travesty. Knowing that about 1/3 of our voters support him after all we've seen from him, is difficult to believe and impossible to accept. Power must change hands.