Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[PermissionToLand]

What those 2 do advocate is higher taxes and more government control over people's lives in general.  Ever known the government to run anything efficiently?

"We are the richest country in the world so I deserve to have ( insert entitlement here)".   

Do you not even hear how incredibly simplistic you are making economic policy, one of the most complex things in the world, out to be?

And the government runs healthcare much more effectively, as seen in countless countries. You realize that by claiming government cannot run anything effectively, you are taking an extremist position, right? Most reasonable intellectuals on either side will admit that government and private enterprise both have certain things they do better than the other, and to some extent, need each other in order to balance things out.

"I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of freedom of speech". "I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of bearing arms". Do you see the massive flaw in your argument there?

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Jarmo - I want you to read that again, so here you go....

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Then stop carrying water for the guy who says there are good Nazis and can't condemn them? And stop supporting a party which repeats white supremacist talking points word-for-word? https://splinternews.com/tucker-carlsons-racist-dog-whistle-of-the-night-is-whit-1829454231

That was Jarmo's whole point; that you cannot condemn Trump or any of the right's excesses. By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

Let me repeat that for you:

By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

Ammendments in the constitution are not entitlements, they are rights granted to Americans by the founders.

Ive do work for the government on one of my contracts I have, I see the inefficiency firsthand. Things that happen there would never fly in the private sector. 

Are you suggesting you are not "entitled" to rights? That is literally the definition of the word entitlement: "the fact of having a right to something."

Funny, I do work for private industry and I see the inefficiency firsthand. Things happen there that would never fly in the public sector.

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Nothing is more deliciously hypocritical than republicans still harping on Clinton 20 years later for a consensual affair, while they supported Roy Moore the fucking PEDOPHILE.

He mentioned a Senator so I responded it wasn't me since my screen name is Senator and I borrowed a Bill Clinton quote. 

And Roy Moore was a horrible candidate, never should have gotten to run.

A horrible candidate? That's it?

... just the kind of enabling by ignoring that I outlined. Thank you for proving my point.

[jarmo]

Colin Powell Says Donald Trump has Turned America from 'We the People' to 'Me the President'
By Benjamin Fearnow On 10/7/18 at 12:53 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-donald-trump-america-we-people-madeleine-albright-constitution-1157119





/jarmo

[sandman]

i think we can safely say, "we have a president."

President Trump's impact on the world we will be felt for generations. Two conservative judges to the supreme court that will be making decisions for decades.

I celebrated Saturday by drinking beer in red solo cups and throwing ice with a bunch of other deplorables. what a day. the winning continues!

[pilferk]

My wife's family are Democrats, last week I was talking politics with that side of the family ( which can be quote dangerous) and my brother in law said since the GOP didn't allow the vote for Garland , F--- Kavanaugh. I think this is pretty much the attitude of most democrats in the senate evidence or no evidence.

I won't pretend to be clairvoyant based on speaking with a dozen or less Democrats who I'm related to by marriage (or drink beers with at the local brewery...which is where a lot of my "in person" political discourse happens), nor will I pretend I can know the intentions of every (or even most) democratic senator casting a vote.  I think that's ridiculously presumptuous.  I'm relatively sure some senators felt that way (one even said as much, from what I remember), and some did not.

BUT, we do know what the Dems SAID THEY AGREED TO with Flake (and Flake confirms this):
Do an investigation (the time frame was Flake's decision, well into the negotiations) and we will promise to get BK up for a vote, at the absolute latest, before the new Senate is seated after the elections, and sooner if the FBI completes it's investigation.  So in other words: While Repubs still had control of the Senate.

So....I don't know how they felt (and, lets face it, neither do you....you're applying partisan bias and a few anecdotes that may or may not be representative), but we KNOW what they agreed to.

Feinstien sat on Fords letter till the questioning of Kavanaugh was over and they couldn't get him on anything else. The letter could have been brought to the committee and the FBI could have looked into things in the beginning while protecting the identity of Dr Ford instead of it turning into the circus we have all been a witness to.

Yes, we've heard the conservative talking points on a loop for 3 weeks now.

And with just a tiny bit of investigation, and in Feinsteins own words (which, of course, you will dismiss out of partisan bias), we know exactly why that happened.  And it wasn't politics, it was Dr. Fords request. The letter requested that the Senator keep the CONTENTS of the letter confidential....not just her identity....until/unless Dr. Ford was ready to come forward.  When the letter was leaked (and it apparently was leaked by someone NOT related to Feinstien...I suspect maybe someone in Ford's congresswoman's office), Dr. Ford contacted Senator Feinstein and said she was ready to come forward, so the Senator could discuss the contents of the letter.

Remember, this letter was written and sent BEFORE BK was actually nominated.  Dr. Ford was hoping the information would get to the necessary people at the WHITE HOUSE and preclude the nomination.  It was not meant for a Senate inquiry (where things are more likely to leak). And when Sen. Feinstein followed up, after the BK nomination, Dr. Ford AGAIN asked she honor the terms in the letter.  Dr. Ford (and Feinstein) were content to sit on that information forever...until the press got wind of it.  THATS why there was nary a peep out of anyone for so long.

Once the letter leaked, there was no putting the genie back in the bottle.  Only then did Feinstein acknowledge she had the letter, and even then she wouldn't discuss it's contents until Dr. Ford finally gave her leave to do so.

So please, spare us all the Fox News replays.

If you think Feinstein and Ford are both liars, fine....then just say that.  But spare us all from the wrote recitation.

Ford's testimony had a lot of inconsistencies and no one can corroborate it. The other accusers are even less credible. Standing by a punch bowl handing out solo cups for example doesn't necessarily make you a gang rapist.

This is why you have an actual, in depth, look at the accusations.  And not limit your list to 9 people (and neither of them are the accusor or the accused).  You say there were a lot of inconsistencies and no one can corroborate it.  That's not entirely true.  No one THEY SPOKE WITH HAS corroborated it...or refuted it (except the two men accused of being there).  There is more than a semantic difference there.  There's a lot of "I don't remember" going on from people, which is to be expected from an unremarkable party (or "gathering" as they called it) 30+ years ago...which is what it probably was to most of those in attendance.

I know that if you suddenly asked me about a party that I attended in the late 80's or early 90's (MY high school and college days), I'd be hard pressed to tell you exactly who was there, who left when, etc.....except for the party that nearly burnt my friends house down (people blazing in her mom's walk in closet), or the party that occurred the night I wrecked my knee.  And even those two relatively traumatic nights have moments of clarity and moments of haziness.  I can tell you who was blazing in that closet....but I can't tell you which of us was driving (to or from) the party that night.  If I had to testify NOW about the fire that night, my memories would be pretty inconsistent and there would be a lot of "I don't remember".  I know my friend who's house it was, on the other hand, remembers a lot more than I do...though I know her memories are also hazy on some details (because we've discussed that night, in recent  years).  Dr. Fords testimony, to me, was entirely consistent with someone who had something traumatic happen to them a LONG time ago.

There are a LOT of inconsistencies in BK's testimony too, and a number of misstatements (or lies) surrounding his consumption of alcohol, and the things he did while under the influence.  And yet, I don't see you making note of those, or saying that they bother you.  I wonder why that is? Honestly.

Both of them deserved a full, fair, and expansive investigation.  Neither got what they deserved because, it seems to me, the Republican Senators were more interested in partisanship than the truth.  As spoken from the Senate Majority leaders, Senator Grassley's and Senator Grahams own mouths, on more than one occasion.    

[pilferk]

He mentioned a Senator so I responded it wasn't me since my screen name is Senator and I borrowed a Bill Clinton quote. 

Man, talk about terrible timing of a "joke".  A Satanic ritual in the middle of St. Peter's square would go over about as well (and be about as funny).

[tim_m]

And now McConnell says he's not against a scotus nomination in 2020 if one opens up. Fucking hypocrite. I can't wait for the day he can no longer destroy America.

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/410448-ford-planning-layoffs-after-trump-tariffs-cost-company-1-billion so much winning!

[Dr. Blutarsky]

And now McConnell says he's not against a scotus nomination in 2020 if one opens up. Fucking hypocrite. I can't wait for the day he can no longer destroy America.

Granted I dont have the hate for him that you do, but I agree he should have the same standard for all nominees regardless of what POTUS nominated them.
 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/410448-ford-planning-layoffs-after-trump-tariffs-cost-company-1-billion so much winning!

Some more winning -

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-49-year-low-2018-10-05/

Unemployment rate drops to 3.7%, lowest in nearly half a century

[Dr. Blutarsky]

What those 2 do advocate is higher taxes and more government control over people's lives in general.  Ever known the government to run anything efficiently?

"We are the richest country in the world so I deserve to have ( insert entitlement here)".   

Do you not even hear how incredibly simplistic you are making economic policy, one of the most complex things in the world, out to be?

And the government runs healthcare much more effectively, as seen in countless countries. You realize that by claiming government cannot run anything effectively, you are taking an extremist position, right? Most reasonable intellectuals on either side will admit that government and private enterprise both have certain things they do better than the other, and to some extent, need each other in order to balance things out.

"I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of freedom of speech". "I am an American so I deserve to have the entitlement of bearing arms". Do you see the massive flaw in your argument there?

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Jarmo - I want you to read that again, so here you go....

when you ask me if I support nazis; that is highly offensive. and I shouldn't have to post in here that I do not.

Then stop carrying water for the guy who says there are good Nazis and can't condemn them? And stop supporting a party which repeats white supremacist talking points word-for-word? https://splinternews.com/tucker-carlsons-racist-dog-whistle-of-the-night-is-whit-1829454231

That was Jarmo's whole point; that you cannot condemn Trump or any of the right's excesses. By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

Let me repeat that for you:

By actively avoiding even addressing them, much less condemning, you are being an enabler of their actions.

Ammendments in the constitution are not entitlements, they are rights granted to Americans by the founders.

Ive do work for the government on one of my contracts I have, I see the inefficiency firsthand. Things that happen there would never fly in the private sector. 

Are you suggesting you are not "entitled" to rights? That is literally the definition of the word entitlement: "the fact of having a right to something."

Funny, I do work for private industry and I see the inefficiency firsthand. Things happen there that would never fly in the public sector.

And let's not forget the sham that's about to unfold with the supreme Court and why they do badly want this scumbag seated.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't a senator leave because he was caught touching a woman? And then we had the judge, who Trump defended, who also quit?



/jarmo

I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

Nothing is more deliciously hypocritical than republicans still harping on Clinton 20 years later for a consensual affair, while they supported Roy Moore the fucking PEDOPHILE.

He mentioned a Senator so I responded it wasn't me since my screen name is Senator and I borrowed a Bill Clinton quote. 

And Roy Moore was a horrible candidate, never should have gotten to run.

A horrible candidate? That's it?

... just the kind of enabling by ignoring that I outlined. Thank you for proving my point.

Moore sucked. As a candidate and as a person. Not sure what point I proved other than you think you had an "A-ha"  moment with my post.  You can go back and read my previous posts on my thoughts on Roy Moore if you choose to.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

My wife's family are Democrats, last week I was talking politics with that side of the family ( which can be quote dangerous) and my brother in law said since the GOP didn't allow the vote for Garland , F--- Kavanaugh. I think this is pretty much the attitude of most democrats in the senate evidence or no evidence.

I won't pretend to be clairvoyant based on speaking with a dozen or less Democrats who I'm related to by marriage (or drink beers with at the local brewery...which is where a lot of my "in person" political discourse happens), nor will I pretend I can know the intentions of every (or even most) democratic senator casting a vote.  I think that's ridiculously presumptuous.  I'm relatively sure some senators felt that way (one even said as much, from what I remember), and some did not.

BUT, we do know what the Dems SAID THEY AGREED TO with Flake (and Flake confirms this):
Do an investigation (the time frame was Flake's decision, well into the negotiations) and we will promise to get BK up for a vote, at the absolute latest, before the new Senate is seated after the elections, and sooner if the FBI completes it's investigation.  So in other words: While Repubs still had control of the Senate.

So....I don't know how they felt (and, lets face it, neither do you....you're applying partisan bias and a few anecdotes that may or may not be representative), but we KNOW what they agreed to.

Feinstien sat on Fords letter till the questioning of Kavanaugh was over and they couldn't get him on anything else. The letter could have been brought to the committee and the FBI could have looked into things in the beginning while protecting the identity of Dr Ford instead of it turning into the circus we have all been a witness to.

Yes, we've heard the conservative talking points on a loop for 3 weeks now.

And with just a tiny bit of investigation, and in Feinsteins own words (which, of course, you will dismiss out of partisan bias), we know exactly why that happened.  And it wasn't politics, it was Dr. Fords request. The letter requested that the Senator keep the CONTENTS of the letter confidential....not just her identity....until/unless Dr. Ford was ready to come forward.  When the letter was leaked (and it apparently was leaked by someone NOT related to Feinstien...I suspect maybe someone in Ford's congresswoman's office), Dr. Ford contacted Senator Feinstein and said she was ready to come forward, so the Senator could discuss the contents of the letter.

Remember, this letter was written and sent BEFORE BK was actually nominated.  Dr. Ford was hoping the information would get to the necessary people at the WHITE HOUSE and preclude the nomination.  It was not meant for a Senate inquiry (where things are more likely to leak). And when Sen. Feinstein followed up, after the BK nomination, Dr. Ford AGAIN asked she honor the terms in the letter.  Dr. Ford (and Feinstein) were content to sit on that information forever...until the press got wind of it.  THATS why there was nary a peep out of anyone for so long.

Once the letter leaked, there was no putting the genie back in the bottle.  Only then did Feinstein acknowledge she had the letter, and even then she wouldn't discuss it's contents until Dr. Ford finally gave her leave to do so.

So please, spare us all the Fox News replays.

If you think Feinstein and Ford are both liars, fine....then just say that.  But spare us all from the wrote recitation.

Ford's testimony had a lot of inconsistencies and no one can corroborate it. The other accusers are even less credible. Standing by a punch bowl handing out solo cups for example doesn't necessarily make you a gang rapist.

This is why you have an actual, in depth, look at the accusations.  And not limit your list to 9 people (and neither of them are the accusor or the accused).  You say there were a lot of inconsistencies and no one can corroborate it.  That's not entirely true.  No one THEY SPOKE WITH HAS corroborated it...or refuted it (except the two men accused of being there).  There is more than a semantic difference there.  There's a lot of "I don't remember" going on from people, which is to be expected from an unremarkable party (or "gathering" as they called it) 30+ years ago...which is what it probably was to most of those in attendance.

I know that if you suddenly asked me about a party that I attended in the late 80's or early 90's (MY high school and college days), I'd be hard pressed to tell you exactly who was there, who left when, etc.....except for the party that nearly burnt my friends house down (people blazing in her mom's walk in closet), or the party that occurred the night I wrecked my knee.  And even those two relatively traumatic nights have moments of clarity and moments of haziness.  I can tell you who was blazing in that closet....but I can't tell you which of us was driving (to or from) the party that night.  If I had to testify NOW about the fire that night, my memories would be pretty inconsistent and there would be a lot of "I don't remember".  I know my friend who's house it was, on the other hand, remembers a lot more than I do...though I know her memories are also hazy on some details (because we've discussed that night, in recent  years).  Dr. Fords testimony, to me, was entirely consistent with someone who had something traumatic happen to them a LONG time ago.

There are a LOT of inconsistencies in BK's testimony too, and a number of misstatements (or lies) surrounding his consumption of alcohol, and the things he did while under the influence.  And yet, I don't see you making note of those, or saying that they bother you.  I wonder why that is? Honestly.

Both of them deserved a full, fair, and expansive investigation.  Neither got what they deserved because, it seems to me, the Republican Senators were more interested in partisanship than the truth.  As spoken from the Senate Majority leaders, Senator Grassley's and Senator Grahams own mouths, on more than one occasion.    

I agree that we disagree.

As far as countering your points or trying to get you to see things from my perspective,  Christmas is coming and I have only so much time. 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Colin Powell Says Donald Trump has Turned America from 'We the People' to 'Me the President'
By Benjamin Fearnow On 10/7/18 at 12:53 PM

https://www.newsweek.com/colin-powell-donald-trump-america-we-people-madeleine-albright-constitution-1157119





/jarmo

 I dont know his stance on GOP Congressional and other republicans down the ladder, but Powell pretty much stopped endorsing the GOP on a presidential level when Obama ran in 2008 and never looked back. I am not surprised by him saying this.

As an individual, I dont think many would disagree that Trump is a flawed person, he exaggerates and isn't modest by any stretch. But so far he has yielded some good results on the economy and foreign policy and have driven Democrats crazy in the process.

[tim_m]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/410448-ford-planning-layoffs-after-trump-tariffs-cost-company-1-billion so much winning!

Some more winning -

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-49-year-low-2018-10-05/

Unemployment rate drops to 3.7%, lowest in nearly half a century

Certainly some good news for sure, but there are still shortages in certain fields thanks to Trump policies. The job growth as still also steadily declined the last year and we didn't meet expected numbers for September. So while not bad news it isn't all rosey red either.

[pilferk]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/410448-ford-planning-layoffs-after-trump-tariffs-cost-company-1-billion so much winning!

Some more winning -

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/september-jobs-report-shows-unemployment-49-year-low-2018-10-05/

Unemployment rate drops to 3.7%, lowest in nearly half a century

Job growth slowed, again, failing to meet targets or expectations.

More people left the workforce, so a good chumk of the unemployment drop was denominator related....not new jobs related.

Underemployment is up.

Inflation hit 3% , with wage growth at 2.5ish% (aka going backwards in terms of spending power).

The numbers arent all rosey. Read the whole article, not the headline....and do a slightly deper dive on the data.

Those numbers are a push, at best. And possibly a cautionary warning about economic cool down. We will know better in q1 2019.

You are also finally just starting to see Trump tariffs effecting the market (see tims post).

Housing starts collapsed in June (down 12%) and are similarly down in July and August (5%+, each month). September looks better (up 9%) but....we'll see.

New industrial construction is sharply down, as well (and yes, I know, where you are in Florida it's BOOOMING!).

All these leading indicators are starting to crop up that are not so positive.  It's too early to tell if we're plateuing...and we're a ways off from a down turn...but saying the numbers are "mixed" is certainly accurate.

[pilferk]

I dont know his stance on GOP Congressional and other republicans down the ladder, but Powell pretty much stopped endorsing the GOP on a presidential level when Obama ran in 2008 and never looked back. I am not surprised by him saying this.

He basically said, during the Repub primaries, that he would likely endorse any Republican candidate EXCEPT Trump in 2016.

Then Trump won the nomination.

So while what you're saying is functionally true, it's not really the whole picture.  He endorsed Obama (and talked about what a great president John McCain would be) in 2008.  He stuck with him in 2012 (for good reason).  He endorsed Clinton purely because Trump was the opponent (and basically said so).

Not believing Trump would be a good president doesn't invalidate his opinion on Trump's presidency so far.

As an individual, I dont think many would disagree that Trump is a flawed person, he exaggerates and isn't modest by any stretch.

You have a gift for understatement that can not be overstated.

He lies. A lot.

He's a self absorbed narcissist. A lot of the time.

And, as you demonstrate below, you could care less that he's an awful human being...as long as he's driving the Dems crazy and giving you a chance to rah rah sis boom bah...YAAAAY TEAM!

But so far he has yielded some good results on the economy and foreign policy and have driven Democrats crazy in the process.

Specifically, what?

He brought home 2 NK prisoners.  Awesome.

He's instituted some very minor (and not all that effective) deregulation. Meh.  Some of that repealed regulation is the stuff that was put in place post subprime mortgage bust to stop it from happening again, but...you know....lets roll the dice and see if the banks have learned their lesson.

He's managed to tweak NAFTA and bring it up to date. Actual effect TBD, but kudos for the necessary, and relatively minor, tweaks. Tweaks the dems have been saying needed to be made for years, but Republican congress refused to entertain because a Dem was in the white house.  Certainly, the tweaks made don't hold up to the campaign rhetoric of "it's a disaster" and "it's the worst trade deal ever" and "it needs to be scrapped and totally redone".

He picked a couple names (one of which is a piece of work, but, according to his writings, will serve the presidents best interests over the countries) off a list provided to him by someone else and put them on the SC.  This is likely the thing he's done (well, OK, "done" might be too strong...the thing the federalist society did, under his authority) that will actually have a lasting impression on our country....for better or worse...but it hasn't really had any effect YET.  And come 2021...ye gods...I expect if the Dems have control of Congress and the presidency we will probably (and unfortunately) see court packing attempted to invalidate it. That's if the Dems don't go the absolutely suicidal "impeach BK" route much sooner. But you'll excuse me if I don't cheer for this accomplishment, all things considered.  But I know you do/will, so...it's on the list.

He's played a TON of golf and taken a LOT of days off.  Something he criticized the previous administration for...and yet he's done WAY more of it.

He's done a LOT of rallies and campaign events. Something he criticized the previous administration for...and yet he's done WAY more of it.

Um....I can't think of another single thing he's actually done?  Some pagentry and showmanship?  CONvincing a bunch of folks that he's been effective?

Wall? Nope.

Obamacare repealed and replaced? Nope.

Steel industry back? Nope. No matter what he says in his speeches (that number of plants US Steel is opening has gone from 4, to 6, to 8, to 10...and yet US Steel says they are opening precisely ZERO new plants and don't plan to appreciably increase output or employment).

Coal industry back? Nope.  They've added a relatively paltry number of jobs in early 2017....and they've started to lose them again, already. 

Is she locked up? Nope (funny how the whole "assume innocence" thing is a double standard when applied to political opponents vs political allies, eh?).

Has NK actually taken steps to denuclearize? Nope. Promises, delays, calls for another face to face before they'll even discuss the high level stuff like inspectors (never mind the gory details of an agreement). Pompeo basically just took a 3 hour meeting to get the "we are definitely going to look into maybe doing that sometime in the future" answer on an agreement, and a proposal for another face to face with Kim and Trump.

Economic growth ticked up? Not really, at least not yet.  Numbers are similar to what they were under Obama, still.  Q2 was a bump, but a lot of it was based on secondary factors (a surge in Chinese soy buying, before the tariffs kicked in, for example and a surge in government spending).  Q3 is going to see a similar bump, for some similar secondary factors (especially government spending). Q4 2018 and Q1 2019 are going to be the real metrics to judge by.  Trump promised sustained annual growth in the upper 4s, or even 5 percent (depending on which speech we're talking about..."or maybe even 6 or 7" we'll chalk up to hyperbole).  We will probably end up around 3% or so for 2018.  That's 0.5% over 2017, and not even what the Repubs estimated the tax cuts wold provide (0.7 to 1.0% depending on which talking points memo you read).  Obama had better and worse years than that ,but if you take all 8 years of his term, you're talking about similar growth levels, on average, to those Trump will have had in 2017 and 2018.

[jarmo]

Hey come on. Let him enjoy all his winning.

I mean, it couldn't have been easy for him during those eight years when you had that non-American president!

 



/jarmo

[sandman]

Let's see how things are going under Trump:

Trump meeting ye to discuss prison reform and chicago violence.

the Senate has confirmed 69 judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 conservative Justices of the SC, 26 conservative judges for the Courts of Appeals, and 41 judges for the United States District Courts.

Trump is at 51% approval on Rasmussen for 5 days now.

54% of Americans rate the economy as good or excellent. highest ever recorded.

Trump's economic approval rating surged 6 points to 51% approval for his handling of the economy (first time he has been over 50%).

Morgan Stanley: Belief in American exceptionalism among global investors has never been higher.

Gallup poll: 43% of likely US voters think the country is heading in the right direction. this number was in the high 20's for most of Obama's 8 years.
  
Unemployment at 3.7%.  The overall civilian labor force participation rate—the share of adults who are either employed or actively looking for work—stayed steady, at 62.7%. “We know this decrease in the unemployment rate is due to more people finding jobs, as the labor force participation rate remained unchanged in September,”.  

The economy is booming. Wages increased at an annualized rate of 3.5%, with inflation staying below 3.0%.  

Experts are saying they didn't think it was possible, and it is due in large part to Trump's policies. and the negative spin has shifted from "it has nothing to do with Trump" (which obviously makes no sense to anyone with half a brain), to "something bad is probably coming."

Dem staffers and angry liberals and ANTIFA getting arrested and/or exposed online for doxing and other assaults on people that just happen to disagree with them.

damn it must be miserable hating Trump. even CNN is getting on board (in a fair and balanced piece)...


(CNN) — Donald Trump may have never had a better time being President.

Only a re-election party on the night of November 3, 2020, could possibly offer the same vindication for America's most unconventional commander in chief as the 36 hours in which two foundational strands of his political career are combining in a sudden burst of history.

Trump became an undeniably consequential President when Senate voted Saturday to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, consecrating the conservative majority that has long been the impossible dream of the GOP.

On Friday, Trump had celebrated the best jobs data for 49 years as the unemployment rate dipped to 3.7%, offering more proof of a vibrant economy that the President says has been unshackled by his tax-reduction program and scything cuts to business regulations.

While his 2016 election campaign was most notable for swirling chaos and shattered norms, Trump's vows to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court and to fire up the economy were the glue for his winning coalition.

The struggle to confirm Kavanaugh split the country, deepened mistrust festering between rival lawmakers and threatens to further drag the Supreme Court into Washington's poisoned political stew. But Trump stuck with it and ground out a win.

So he has every right to return to voters in the next four weeks ahead of the midterm elections to argue he has done exactly what he said he would do. He now has a strong message to convince grass-roots Republicans that it's well worth showing up at the polls.


Testing the new message

He got his first chance to road-test his new, improved message at a campaign rally in Topeka, Kansas, on Saturday night.

It's ironic that it was Trump, a late convert to conservatism -- not authentic Republicans like President Ronald Reagan, both Bush presidents and beaten GOP nominees Mitt Romney and John McCain -- who finally delivered the Supreme Court majority.

Kavanaugh is Trump's second nominee to reach the court in less than two years, following Neil Gorsuch.

Of course, the Supreme Court win is the culmination of decades of work by conservative activists and was masterminded by the cunning of Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell. But Presidents get credit when they are in the Oval Office when things go well and Trump, whether it is his fault or not, has taken more than his share of criticism.

On Saturday morning, Trump celebrated the imminent vote, praising pro-Kavanaugh women activists while again jabbing protesters opposed to the judge, many of whom said they had their own stories of assaults. His attitude reflected what critics say is a habit of siding with the accused rather than the alleged victims of assaults.

"Women for Kavanaugh, and many others who support this very good man, are gathering all over Capitol Hill in preparation for a 3-5 P.M. VOTE. It is a beautiful thing to see - and they are not paid professional protesters who are handed expensive signs. Big day for America!" Trump wrote.

The President's remarks came as people gathered outside the US Supreme Court building to protest the vote.

A President of consequence

There is more evidence than the soon-to-be reshaped Supreme Court and the roaring economy to make a case that Trump is building a substantial presidency that in many ways looks like a historic pivot point, despite its extremely controversial nature.

Largely unnoticed in the Washington imbroglio over sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh, the Trump administration is engineering significant changes at home and abroad that often represent sharp revisions of direction from traditional American positions.

This week, for instance, the White House initiated a potentially momentous shift in the US approach to China, recognizing the Asian giant as a global competitor and a threat to American security, prosperity and interests -- reversing decades of policy designed to manage Beijing's ascent as a major power and eventual partner.

The administration is also tightening a vise around Iran in a strategy that threatens to escalate into open confrontation with the Islamic Republic. Elsewhere in the Middle East, a bolstered anti-ISIS strategy has blasted the radical group from its strongholds in shattered Syria. And Trump has rejected decades of US orthodoxy in managing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which could have uncertain results.

Trump's bullying approach to trade negotiations has recently yielded remodeled agreements with Canada, Mexico and South Korea. While he exaggerates how much he changed existing deals, he can still boast that his "Art of the Deal" negotiating strategy -- another core component of his appeal to his supporters -- is working.

An announcement of a deeper slashing of refugee admissions by the United States further cements the "America First" philosophy that has changed global strategic assumptions.

At home, Trump's assault on regulations at agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency is accelerating, in a blitz against what Steve Bannon once called the administrative state that fulfills another long-dreamed-of goal of the conservative movement.

The case against the President

Many of Trump's perceived achievements are hugely controversial, and his opponents will argue that they stain America's image, reverse a march toward human progress and justice, and will ultimately exert a price the nation will be paying for many years to come.

And Democrats carp that Trump is only building off the far more significant economic work of his predecessor Barack Obama in the wake of the Great Recession and argue that his tax cuts sharply worsened inequality and exploded budget deficits in a way that will haunt the economy for decades.

Trump's critics say his approach to the world threatens to buckle the international system of alliances and a rule-based trading system that made America the richest and most powerful nation in US history and a beacon of democracy.

They say his presidency is in fact most notable for a culture of corruption, falsehood and demagoguery.

There is a case to be made that Trump's constant twisting of truth, invention of false political realities and strategy of tearing at the country's racial, gender and societal divides in order to capture and wield power threaten the eternal values and institutions of the nation itself.

This week, the President stood accused of tax fraud after a New York Times investigation into his family finances in the 1990s. And, though special counsel Robert Mueller has gone quiet in election season, Trump's campaign is under investigation to see whether it conspired with a foreign power to win his election.

The voters will choose....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/06/politics/donald-trump-presidency-supreme-court-economy/index.html

[pilferk]

 
Unemployment at 3.7%.  The overall civilian labor force participation rate—the share of adults who are either employed or actively looking for work—stayed steady, at 62.7%. “We know this decrease in the unemployment rate is due to more people finding jobs, as the labor force participation rate remained unchanged in September,”.  

To clarify my earlier point:

For September, yes.

Since taking office, no. (63% vs 62.7%)

The unemployment rate was 3.7 percent, down 2/10ths of a percentage point from August and down 0.5 percentage points from the same period last year. The labor participation rate was flat at 62.7 percent from August to September, but down 3/10th of a percentage point from September 2017

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4210327-september-jobs-prints-fair-ameliorated-revisions-geopolitical-concerns-hawkish-fed-concern-us

Underemployment was also steady for September.

But is up since Trump took office.

Trump is at 51% approval on Rasmussen for 5 days now.

The ONLY poll to show him CLOSE to positive approval ratings and a consistent conservative outlier.

Blah blah blah most accurate poll in the 2016 elections.  A broken clock is right twice a day. 

Aggregate polling on RCP (realclearpolitics.com) shows him at around -9% approval.

Face it: He is unpopular with everyone except his base (around 35 - 40%).

54% of Americans rate the economy as good or excellent. highest ever recorded.

Fueled largely by Republican responses.  Also true: There has never been a wider partisan gap in the responses to that metric.

Gallup poll: 43% of likely US voters think the country is heading in the right direction. this number was in the high 20's for most of Obama's 8 years.

See above.

Also: RCP says 39.5% (again, aggregate polling) says right direction.
54.5 % say wrong direction.

One last bit on the polls: If you see POLLING as an accomplishment, you are proving my point for me.  Because that's what Trump wants to tout: His poll numbers (and only the positive ones).  He doesn't actually seem to care about anything else....just that he looks good.

It's all about him.  And you quoting poll numbers show that, as one of his voters, that's the way you want it.

Cult of personality and tribalist. 100%

The economy is booming. Wages increased at an annualized rate of 3.5%, with inflation staying below 3.0%. 

Where are those numbers from?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/10/america-wage-growth-is-getting-wiped-out-entirely-by-inflation/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3b4acbdb10fa

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wages-arent-growing-when-adjusted-for-inflation-new-data-finds-2018-07-17

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/07/12/inflation-hits-year-high-wiping-out-wage-gains-average-american/?utm_term=.36a5e96bfdef

Recent numbers show that not to be true.  And .5%-ish annualized wage growth (.4%-ish if you use the seekingalpha numbers and the 2.9% I've seen reported), even using your numbers, is pathetically stagnant.  That's hardly something I'd be crowing about, especially considering how low unemployment is.  The whole point is that low unemployment is supposed to drive wages up.  That's the whole Republican Theory of economics in a nutshell. And their argument against minimum wage (or minimum wage increases). And yet....

The economy, right now, is fine. No doubt about it. I've said it for PAGES and PAGES of this discussion, and the Senator has even tried to lie about my position to the contrary a few times, to no avail.

There are warning signs, though, that it might be about to plateu.  Recent numbers have been meh, and have some stuff that needs to be looked at (and possibly corrected).  I mean, the seekingalpha article I posted above pretty much is in lockstep with my opinion.

Nobody is saying Trump has pointed us toward a Recession or an economic collapse.  That's you being hysterical and hyperbolic.

Experts are saying they didn't think it was possible, and it is due in large part to Trump's policies. and the negative spin has shifted from "it has nothing to do with Trump" (which obviously makes no sense to anyone with half a brain), to "something bad is probably coming."

Experts like...those that appear on fox news? Or those on the WH payroll?

Most actual, credible, economists I've ready say it takes 18 to 24 months for incoming administrations to have real, measurable, effect on the economy.  We are just starting to enter that frame, and, indeed, we're just now possibly seeing the results of some of his economic policy (what little there is...with the tax cuts being the most noteable, but largely ineffectual with consumers SO FAR, tenet of that policy).

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/08/13/trumponomics/

A recent study confirms the continuity in economic performance. A team of economists looked at the combination of other countries’ economies that most closely mimicked ours in performance between 1995 and 2016. They then looked at how this combination of economies had performed after the 2016 election. The result: No detectible Trump effect, positive or negative. That conclusion feels about right.

The fact that the economy has done roughly as well since Trump took office as it was doing before he took office suggests that Republican policies cannot yet be making much positive or negative difference to the economy. And this is what the content of those policies should lead us to expect.

Thats from conservative economists writing an article for a decidedly conservative outlet, FYI.

But, you know, all that data use and analysis and ACTUAL STUDIES and those impressive degrees certainly show they don't have brains.

The authors also mention that Trump has been a good "cheerleader" in the states he won, and those people's positive perception helps fuel consumer confidence and spending.  Those states have done slightly better, in sum total (with some notable exceptions being Ohio and Wisconsin).  There is one problem with this: The economies where he lost have done slightly worse, in total.  And they are larger (and more integral to the overall economy) economies with larger populations.  So the "Trump Effect" in some total is, at best, a wash, and, at worst, a slight drain on economic growth.

Trump does deserve credit, though.....and I've said this before.  Trump deserves credit for not massively screwing up the Obama recovery/economy.  I guess you can give him credit for his relative inaction!    Faint praise, but....sure.

As for the future? We don't know.  We'll see, more, coming up with Q4 and Q1 2019.

Dem staffers and angry liberals and ANTIFA getting arrested and/or exposed online for doxing and other assaults on people that just happen to disagree with them.

There's crazies in every crowd.  Should we talk about all the Repubs who went crazy during the Obama presidency? I mean, our current president is one of them, so.....  Or maybe we should talk about the right wing nationalists who ran a woman over last year?  Or a few dozen other right wing "protests" that have ended in violence?  We can lay those right at your feet, right? Because they were all Republicans.

It works both ways, cupcake.

Also, let me fix your quote for you:

Dem staffers and angry liberals getting arrested and/or exposed online that just happen to disagree with [trump].

Consider this your monthly feeding.  Enjoy it...it's all you'll get til November.

[pilferk]

Hey come on. Let him enjoy all his winning.

I mean, it couldn't have been easy for him during those eight years when you had that non-American president!

 



/jarmo

What I find hysterical is all the goal post moving by Repubs (and the Dems do it, too...just...less).

Things that, under Obama, were totally unacceptable. Numbers that were horrible, not good enough, and that indicated he was a horrible president. Foreign policy that was going to ruin us as a nation.

Now, suddenly those numbers, those actions, and those policies...almost (and in most cases MORE than almost...exactly) verbatim... to those seen in the previous administration, are suddenly "winning".

And suddenly we are "winning" when in the past we were "losing" simply because "their guy" is sitting in the oval.  Oh, and they have a MAGA hat on so it must be true!

It's also ironic (and hypocritical) that, in 2010, when the economic recovery started in the US, the Repubs (and there were a few of them in the old politics thread who did it, too) suddenly decried that the 2010 economic recovery was because of Bush's policies his last year....2.5 years later.

But now, when you say we're only just exiting the Obama economy and are on the cusp of the Trump economy...18 months into the administration...suddenly that's all wrong headed thinking, and any insinuation of that shows you don't have a brain.

jarmo....do you think they'd like some marmite with that hypocrisy sandwich? 

[jarmo]

Unlike Obama, the non-American, Trump has no time for things such as golf!




/jarmo