I truly can understand why Republicans in Congress...

You only have a problem when how bows to a NATO country or praises a NATO leader, but he can bow to and praise murderous autocrats as much as he wants? Any sane person can tell what is worse out of those options.

 

His visit to NATO was being discussed and how he was coming home like a whipped puppy. Was he, I don't think so. France is making noise like they're a stand alone military so it seems they have forgotten Libya and who knocked out the air defense systems so they could make their bombing runs. The UN and NATO are as powerful as American commitment is.

 

Oh Frank please enlighten us all on this damage president Trump has done to America. Please quote chapter an verse on this one and include links that support this assumption. Please be very specific in your claims, if it's as bad as you say there must be a mountain of evidence that you can cite.

 

I've never really believed Hillary won the popular vote given the terrible campaign she ran and the many states she should have won and didn't but most of all because of her undeniable involvement in the FBI/CIA attempt to unseat Trump. The IGs report may shed some light on this all though it's looking like they may have already gotten to Horowitz, if there isn't a bombshell in the report we'll know that they have. The Clintons although diminished in their public standing are still quite powerful and teflon coated. America will never truly recover while people like them are still around.

 

The other world leaders mocked him.

He has devastated America's position in the world.

Understandable, because as his secretary of state said, "he is a f****** moron."

 

Nah. If you cannot see it already...you are one of the Trump followers. Ya know...the purposefully blind ones.

 

As you say, the Constitution specifically requires the Congress to set duties and taxes. Congress has given the president extraordinary powers in cases of national emergencies and security foolishly not anticipating a president like Trump that uses them at the drop of a hat. I'm somewhat surprised that he hasn't used those acts to have a new secure wing added on to Mar a Lago. Look for those laws to be tightened a lot when Moscow Mitch can't block changes anymore.

 

No list? Go figure!

 

Then they should impeach him.

 

We'd need more Republicans to care about the Constitution, limited government, and capitalism/free market principles for that. Your post is an example of the difficulty we are having there.

 

I am not a republican and the smiley face is meant to suggest an attempt at humor. I don't know how to help you with your difficulty because I don't know what it is.

 

You're not getting off that easy Frank. This is a forum for debate, you cannot state things and not back them up with facts. Such hit and run stuff tells us you got nothing but like to parrot what may or may not be popular and has a certain bias. That kind of crap makes you sound stupid Frank and gives you zero credibility. So c'mon Frank put your money where your mouth is and show us the evidence that Trump has damaged America. Specifics Frank, specifics, links are helpful.

 

If you want to think me stupid...please feel free to do so.

If you want me to jump through hoops...you are going to fail.

In any case, if you cannot see the kinds of damage Trump has done to America and our position in the world without further explanation...it is not that you CANNOT see. The problem is that you WILL NOT see.

 

I appreciate you posting this link, but the article debunks your argument. It point exactly what I've been saying. There's no such thing as the Trump economic miracle, as the article does a pretty good job of demonstrating.

 

It backs your "trajectory" stuff. But you're really writing none of this has had any helpful impact?: (What I copied. There was so much I stopped).

"Once you set aside “Orange man bad!” You see he has done so much for all Americans.

GDP growth exceeded 3 percent over the last four quarters.

Real GDP grew at annual rates of 3.4 percent in the third quarter of 2018 and 4.2 percent in the second quarter. (Obama's adjusted "trajec

More than 5.5 million jobs have been created since President Trump’s election and

The unemployment rate remains below 4 percent. This is the eighth time this year that the unemployment rate has been below 4 percent. Prior to this year, the unemployment rate had fallen below 4 percent only five times since 1970.

The unemployment rate for African Americans in May fell to 5.9 percent, which is the lowest rate on record.

Asian and Hispanic-American unemployment rates have reached record lows this year.

Initial weekly jobless claims have hit a 51-year low

Job openings outnumber the unemployed for the first time on record."

The Left predicted not only would this "trajectory" climb this fast and far, but the opposite.

 

Yes, that's what the Uber guy in the comments wrote, but the article itself, rather than relying on "Orange Man Bad," uses data to show why he rejects it. We can go over that data if you want. In business analysis we call this the rooster taking credit for the sunrise. I'd get fired if I tried pulling something like this in response to an actual, honest trend analysis.

All the Uber commenter is doing is repeating the exact same talking points that the article just got through specifically and thoroughly debunking, and the commenter does not actually respond to that debunking. He just dishonestly calls it "Orange Man Bad" and hits repeat on the debunked talking points.

 

I'm just going to respond to this one another time to provide more detail.

The "'trajectory' stuff" is trend analysis. It is core to all micro and macro economic analysis. When someone starts telling you that their numbers are big, but they won't talk about previous numbers or how they relate, start getting worried.

I've stated before that I'm sure some of his actions, like tax cuts, will have a positive impact. Others, like his tariffs, will have a negative impact. That's why I am more concerned about the net effect. And there really doesn't seem to be one.

Just to be clear about the following, I realize that the rest of what I'm quoting is from the commenter, not from you, anything insulting I write is aimed at him, not you.

None of the article this guy is commenting on is "Orange man bad." It is a factual analysis. The commenter starts by refusing to consider anything that the writer has said, so the knee jerk, mindless dismissiveness he's accusing the author of is, instead, something he's guilty of himself. "Orange man critics bad."

Yet the commenter provides no, and I mean absolutely no reason for any of us to believe that any of the good things that follow were done by Trump. He's just commanding us to assume that and expecting to get away with it.

Just because something happens while Trump is sitting in the Oval Office does not mean that he's the one who did it. Same goes for Obama and the growth that happened while he was in the Oval Office.

That's an interesting trick. Notice how he doesn't want to talk about annual GDP growth. He wants to talk about four consecutive quarters, but not a full year - Q1 through Q4.

Anyway, just to set things straight, the highest annual GDP under Obama and the highest annual GDP under Trump are the same: 2.9%.

Can you find four consecutive quarters (not something economists generally measure, but fine) under Trump that broke 3%? Yes . . . and you can do the same thing for Obama. In fact . . .

Q2 2014: 5.5%
Q3 2014: 5%
Q4 2014: 2.3%
Q1 2015: 3.2%

Four quarter average: 4%

These were not the final numbers.

Q3 2018: 3%
Q2 2018: 3.5%

That's good, but what about even more recent numbers?

Q4 2018: 1.1%
Q2 2019: 2%

And what about those 5+% quarters under Obama? Hell, the highest quarter under Obama was higher than the highest quarter under Trump. So what? This is why economists don't like to just cherry-pick a quarter here and a quarter there. It doesn't really tell you anything.

The employment trend hasn't changed. Well, actually it has slowed down a bit under Trump, but that isn't his fault; that's to be expected given how low unemployment has gotten.

If you are going to credit Presidential policy for these numbers (I encourage you not to, but that seems to be the assumption this is all built around), then Obama's policies made a significant, positive change to the economy while Trump's are indistinguishable from a continuation of Obama's policies. It would have been no different than if Obama had somehow gotten a 3rd term.

 

Politics is beyond polarized. Too many people find the opposition odious. It speaks volumes when some support President Trump, because The Democratic Party is that pernicious to them.

 

(snipped because when I tried to post too much data before, it would not let me do so).

Don't recall where I got the number but to your knowledge, is the GPD growth average, (I think it tried to factor out disastrous 1st couple of quarters that were actually Bushes' fault) for Obama at 1.8? Using the same kind of methods, is Trump over 3.0? Absolutely not your fault if not as, again, I don't recall where I got the 1.8. My bad. Your advice is appreciated.