Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

It's been going on for something like two years now. Doesn't even seem to be about Russian collusion anymore. With all the leaks to the media from both sides if there was a there there we would certainly have known by now, IMO.

Did you miss the indictments, charges and guilty pleas or something?

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

MY metrics and MY opinion…

Trump greatness…
He has done more for conservatives than any other president, continues to remove burdensome government regulations throughout many different bureaucracies, doing extremely well at appointing judges, overseeing soaring economic growth and job creation, defeated the military might of ISIS, and bringing back America’s manufacturing capability… and all in less than two years.  Just think of what we’ll see in the next two years.


Obama worst…
He weaponized the government against his enemies, oversaw a 64% increase in a surveillance state, the worst economic recovery in our history, single-handily created the largest deficits in our history, responsible in large part for the creation of ISIS, and ObamaCare.

Where does Trump calling the free press 'enemies of the people' fit into all that?
As long as enough 'conservatives' are making money Trump can say and do pretty much what he likes. Theres ethics for you.

Beechwoodspark

The mid terms will be crucial.

If they go in favorite of the Democrats I can see the trump presidency being a total and utter disaster.

If they go republican then I’d bet he will get a second term.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

It's been going on for something like two years now.  Doesn't even seem to be about Russian collusion anymore.  With all the leaks to the media from both sides if there was a there there we would certainly have known by now, IMO.

Did you miss the indictments, charges and guilty pleas or something?

How many had to do with Trump/Russia collusion?

Captain Obvious

notobtuse wrote: »

How many had to do with Trump/Russia collusion?

He was never tasked with finding collusion. He was tasked with identifying Russian interference with the election.

notobtuse

Captain Obvious wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

How many had to do with Trump/Russia collusion?

He was never tasked with finding collusion. He was tasked with identifying Russian interference with the election.

Ahhh... so why have all the charges, other than Russians who will never appear in US court, except one, IMO, been to do with things other than Russian interference with the election?  Witch hunt, perhaps?

Trigger

notobtuse wrote: »

Ahhh... so why have all the charges, other than Russians who will never appear in US court, except one, IMO, been to do with things other than Russian interference with the election?  Witch hunt, perhaps?

Because as a special counsel if he finds evidence of wrongdoing, irrespective of its link to his original brief, he must investigate that. It doesn’t matter what it is, fraud, parking fines or anything else. If they find evidence of any crime, they are hardly going to say “ah it’s nothing to do with Russia, let them at it”

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

How many had to do with Trump/Russia collusion?

What's that got to do with Mueller's appointment? It's only just over a year since he was appointed and he's indicted Russians and got guilty pleas and charges against top members of Trump's campaign. That's what he was tasked to do.



I may as well add while I'm here that the investigation into Clinton took 12 years so Mueller's working at a very fast rate. You can repeat dumb, debunked talking points all you like about witch hunts and it going on too long but investigations take time. If you're depending on Trump for your arguments, you'll need to get used to the idea that the words of a liar don't stand the test of time. "No contacts with any Russians" anyone?

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

Witch hunt, perhaps?

You can plead that all you like but precedent and, well, reality in general would disagree with you.

dr.fuzzenstein

notobtuse wrote: »

MY metrics and MY opinion…

Obama worst…
He weaponized the government against his enemies, oversaw a 64% increase in a surveillance state, the worst economic recovery in our history, single-handily created the largest deficits in our history, responsible in large part for the creation of ISIS, and ObamaCare.

Your opinion? Well, you know what they say about those. And your metrics seem include racism, bigotry and chauvinism.
The worst economic recovery in history?
Well, that would be because of the worst crash in history, brought to you by (drumroll please).....drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, dadadadaaaaaaaaa!
George W Bush and his bunch of merry men! Courtesy of the Republicans.
This was followed by 8 solids years of growth. Courtesy of Obama.
Republicans wouldn't let a Democrat piss on them if they were on fire it seems.
Trump will not come even close to this.
Funny how Republicans always cause a crash and the Democrats always have to pull the cart out of the sh*t.
And I almost miss that little monkey.
And funny how their voters have goldfish memories.

notobtuse

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

MY metrics and MY opinion…

Obama worst…
He weaponized the government against his enemies, oversaw a 64% increase in a surveillance state, the worst economic recovery in our history, single-handily created the largest deficits in our history, responsible in large part for the creation of ISIS, and ObamaCare.

Your opinion? Well, you know what they say about those. And your metrics seem include racism, bigotry and chauvinism.
The worst economic recovery in history?
Well, that would be because of the worst crash in history, brought to you by (drumroll please).....drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, dadadadaaaaaaaaa!
George W Bush and his bunch of merry men! Courtesy of the Republicans.
This was followed by 8 solids years of growth. Courtesy of Obama.
Republicans wouldn't let a Democrat piss on them if they were on fire it seems.
Trump will not come even close to this.
Funny how Republicans always cause a crash and the Democrats always have to pull the cart out of the sh*t.
And I almost miss that little monkey.
And funny how their voters have goldfish memories.

Please tell me how my metrics seem to include racism, bigotry and chauvinism.  Or perhaps you might want to retract that.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

Perhaps, but as it turns out politically savvy if he did it for the reasons I mentioned.

Dunno, sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

the worst economic recovery in our history

I won't go into most of the nonsense because it's nonsense.

If you want to compare and be given any credit, then be honest about it.

The above line is class though.

'Call that a recovery???'

notobtuse

Midlife wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

the worst economic recovery in our history

I won't go into most of the nonsense because it's nonsense.

If you want to compare and be given any credit, then be honest about it.

The above line is class though.

'Call that a recovery???'

I stand by my comment.  There have been 11 recessions in the US since WWII. Each one was followed by a recovery. Yes, even Obama experienced an economic recovery, but it just happens to be the worst one, IMO.  All jobs lost here in post WWII recessions were recovered after about 25 months, on average. But under Obama it took 77 months for employment to return to pre recession levels.  That makes Obama’s recovery the slowest recovery of them all, and by a pretty large margin, IMO. Obama is also the only president in U.S. history to have never had a single year of 3.0 percent or greater GDP growth, and he increased the deficit by almost 8 Trillion US dollars in the process, to boot.

Midlife

notobtuse wrote: »

I stand by my comment.  There have been 11 recessions in the US since WWII. Each one was followed by a recovery. Yes, even Obama experienced an economic recovery, but it just happens to be the worst one, IMO.  All jobs lost here in post WWII recessions were recovered after about 25 months, on average. But under Obama it took 77 months for employment to return to pre recession levels.  That makes Obama’s recovery the slowest recovery of them all, and by a pretty large margin, IMO. Obama is also the only president in U.S. history to have never had a single year of 3.0 percent or greater GDP growth, and he increased the deficit by almost 8 Trillion US dollars in the process, to boot.

Yes because comparing the recovery time of a year and a half recession where GDP fell by 5% to a six month recession where it fell by 0.3% makes perfect sense.

Obviously you also say 'since world war 2' because the 3 massive recessions just before your random choice of timeline make your argument fall apart.

Like i said, be honest. Otherwise there's no point.

And yes, Obama was running at a trillion dollars a year. You have a big problem with that, right?

notobtuse

notobtuse wrote: »

I stand by my comment.  There have been 11 recessions in the US since WWII. Each one was followed by a recovery. Yes, even Obama experienced an economic recovery, but it just happens to be the worst one, IMO.  All jobs lost here in post WWII recessions were recovered after about 25 months, on average. But under Obama it took 77 months for employment to return to pre recession levels.  That makes Obama’s recovery the slowest recovery of them all, and by a pretty large margin, IMO. Obama is also the only president in U.S. history to have never had a single year of 3.0 percent or greater GDP growth, and he increased the deficit by almost 8 Trillion US dollars in the process, to boot.

But Trump is also increasing the deficit, and proposing to bail out farmers because of his stupid trade war.

looksee

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani/index.html

This article by Chris Cillizza for CNN is a bit worrying, if you believe it. I don't know whether to believe it, or not. It is so disturbingly deflating that it could even be a reasonable notion.

The biggest misconception surrounding the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election is that it will likely end in some sort of legal proceeding involving President Donald Trump. It won't -- for a bunch of reasons, the most important of which is that Robert Mueller, who is running the investigation, doesn't seem to believe a sitting President can be indicted.

The much more likely outcome is that Mueller releases the findings from his investigation sometime this fall — and lets the chips, as they relate to Trump, fall where they may. Which means — and this is what Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have understood for months — that, ultimately, this isn't a legal fight, it's a public relations one.

Water John

The only comparable economic crash is 1929. But by drawing your arbitrary line as being 1945 you neatly avoid the obvious.
We can see how you constantly set your own parameters.

Christy42

notobtuse wrote: »

Midlife wrote: »

notobtuse wrote: »

the worst economic recovery in our history

I won't go into most of the nonsense because it's nonsense.

If you want to compare and be given any credit, then be honest about it.

The above line is class though.

'Call that a recovery???'

I stand by my comment.  There have been 11 recessions in the US since WWII. Each one was followed by a recovery. Yes, even Obama experienced an economic recovery, but it just happens to be the worst one, IMO.  All jobs lost here in post WWII recessions were recovered after about 25 months, on average. But under Obama it took 77 months for employment to return to pre recession levels.  That makes Obama’s recovery the slowest recovery of them all, and by a pretty large margin, IMO. Obama is also the only president in U.S. history to have never had a single year of 3.0 percent or greater GDP growth, and he increased the deficit by almost 8 Trillion US dollars in the process, to boot.

Any word on the scale of those recessions?

To boot Trump has put in over 1 trillion dollars onto the debt in that year and a half. On course to be around the same levels as Obama who had to stimulate a full economy while Trump is riding the gravy train taking over a booming economy and still, still managed to keep pace with adding to the national debt (as ever this is after a promise by Trump to the opposite as he previously declared he would get rid of the national debt in 8 years).

Any Republican complaining about Obama putting too much into the national debt is having a laugh these days.

Edit: Indeed after WWII most recessions have been smaller affairs compared to the complete financial collapse that Obama took over. Like saying your mate in a five a side league is great cos he has a better strike rate Messi. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Manic Moran

looksee wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani/index.html

This article by Chris Cillizza for CNN is a bit worrying, if you believe it. I don't know whether to believe it, or not. It is so disturbingly deflating that it could even be a reasonable notion.

The biggest misconception surrounding the special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election is that it will likely end in some sort of legal proceeding involving President Donald Trump. It won't -- for a bunch of reasons, the most important of which is that Robert Mueller, who is running the investigation, doesn't seem to believe a sitting President can be indicted.

The much more likely outcome is that Mueller releases the findings from his investigation sometime this fall — and lets the chips, as they relate to Trump, fall where they may. Which means — and this is what Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have understood for months — that, ultimately, this isn't a legal fight, it's a public relations one.

I don’t think this is anything new. I don’t think anyone outside of those who blindly hate Trump and believe what matches their conceptions truly believed that the investigation would result in some sort of catastrophic fall for Trump, by impeachment, charge, or anything else.

There was a related opinion piece on CNN today, damned if I can’t find the link right now, observing on the difference between ‘private trump’ as recorded on tape, and ‘public trump’ on TV, Twitter and so on, and how it all may be a careful charade.

VonZan

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Your opinion? Well, you know what they say about those. And your metrics seem include racism, bigotry and chauvinism.
The worst economic recovery in history?
Well, that would be because of the worst crash in history, brought to you by (drumroll please).....drrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, dadadadaaaaaaaaa!
George W Bush and his bunch of merry men! Courtesy of the Republicans.
This was followed by 8 solids years of growth. Courtesy of Obama.
Republicans wouldn't let a Democrat piss on them if they were on fire it seems.
Trump will not come even close to this.
Funny how Republicans always cause a crash and the Democrats always have to pull the cart out of the sh*t.
And I almost miss that little monkey.
And funny how their voters have goldfish memories.

How did the Democrats 'pull the cart out of the sh1t'?

I'd love to hear this. Do you think the US economy is in a good position? Savings are lower than they have ever been before as a % and the Federal Reserve is incapable of raising interest rates materially because they won't be able to pay interest rates on future bonds. Debt amongst US consumers is at capacity. If you earn less than $100,000 with a small family in San Francisco you are living in poverty by US metrics. You do also realise we will have another recession in the next 2-3 years?

Neither party can take credit for these short-term, investor driven, growth strategies.

Midlife

VonZan wrote: »

How did the Democrats 'pull the cart out of the sh1t'?

I'd love to hear this. Do you think the US economy is in a good position? Savings are lower than they have ever been before as a % and the Federal Reserve is incapable of raising interest rates materially because they won't be able to pay interest rates on future bonds. Debt amongst US consumers is at capacity. If you earn less than $100,000 with a small family in San Francisco you are living in poverty by US metrics. You do also realise we will have another recession in the next 2-3 years?

Neither party can take credit for these short-term, investor driven, growth strategies.

Agree fully.

The country needs to have a long look at it's priorities. It's fiscal aproach on a government, person and philosophical level seem to be rooted in a vast country with infinite resources, plenty of opportunity and a wide open west.

Libertarianism, from an economic standpoint, only makes sense if you're rich already.

Water John

Facebook pull 32 accounts, interfering with 2018 mid terms.
Real News.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

You may have noticed California getting a bit of a slating in social media this month. Serving a drink with a plastic straw can now come with a six month jail sentence in Santa Barbara (just a $1,000 fine in SF), San Francisco has banned workplace cafeterias and electric scooters, whereas folks are more worried about the homeless problem, human waste and needles on the streets, public transport, and the like.

Bit OT but what possible reason can be given for this? Seems to be little more than further erosion of employee rights and coming from California in particular seems bizarre.

Midlife

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Bit OT but what possible reason can be given for this? Seems to be little more than further erosion of employee rights and coming from California in particular seems bizarre.

I think it's more along the lines of corporations feeding staff breakfast, lunch and dinner which was killing the restaurant industry.

Cookie_Monster

Midlife wrote: »

I think it's more along the lines of corporations feeding staff breakfast, lunch and dinner which was killing the restaurant industry.

how is it killing the restaurant industry? If I didn't get lunch in work why would I go to a restaurant rather than bring a packed lunch?

jooksavage

With all the collusion talk, it's easy to forget that Trumps biggest problem is likely to be an obstruction of justice charge. Last year, the central plank of Trumps defence in their correspondences with Mueller was that Trump didnt know Flynn was under investigation when he had that meeting with Comey. Yesterday it came out that Trump absolutely did know - a WH memo shows that he was informed by four senior staffers including Don McGann and Reince Priebus that Flynn was being investigated the DAY BEFORE the now infamous dinner date with Comey.

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/07/31/what-trump-knew-and-when-he-knew-it/

Captain Obvious

looksee wrote: »

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/31/politics/donald-trump-rudy-giuliani/index.html

This article by Chris Cillizza for CNN is a bit worrying, if you believe it. I don't know whether to believe it, or not. It is so disturbingly deflating that it could even be a reasonable notion.

Trump being indicted was always going to be an outside chance. His replacement would likely pardon him anyway. Impeachment is a very real possibility. So is indictment of Kushner and Jr.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don’t think this is anything new. I don’t think anyone outside of those who blindly hate Trump and believe what matches their conceptions truly believed that the investigation would result in some sort of catastrophic fall for Trump, by impeachment, charge, or anything else.

There was a related opinion piece on CNN today, damned if I can’t find the link right now, observing on the difference between ‘private trump’ as recorded on tape, and ‘public trump’ on TV, Twitter and so on, and how it all may be a careful charade.

Clinton was impeached because he had an affair and lied about it. Trump has set a record for lying while president, including about multiple affairs. He and his family have also broken umpteen ethics, using their position to push private business ventures and enrich themselves. There's plenty to impeach him on. It doesn't take blind hate to expect impeachment.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You may have noticed California getting a bit of a slating in social media this month. Serving a drink with a plastic straw can now come with a six month jail sentence in Santa Barbara (just a $1,000 fine in SF), San Francisco has banned workplace cafeterias and electric scooters, whereas folks are more worried about the homeless problem, human waste and needles on the streets, public transport, and the like.

See, this is what I have an issue with. Two supervisors have proposed a change in zoning to ban industrial sized kitchens in office buildings in future developments. San Francisco has not banned workplace cafeterias.

Igotadose

notobtuse wrote: »

MY metrics and MY opinion…

Trump greatness…
He has done more for conservatives than any other president, continues to remove burdensome government regulations throughout many different bureaucracies, doing extremely well at appointing judges, overseeing soaring economic growth and job creation, defeated the military might of ISIS, and bringing back America’s manufacturing capability… and all in less than two years.  Just think of what we’ll see in the next two years.

Wait.... I thought reagan was the best president evs for Conservatives? Though, he did sign the Brady Bill, I guess that might rankle.

Others have mentioned Trump's impact on the economy and how he's neither due credit for it yet, and some skepticism about the enormous budget deficit he's added. He's after another $100bn tax cut for the wealthy, allowing 'inflation' when figuring out the capital gains tax. Of course, the ultra-goodie of the capital gains tax reduction was due to GWB, and is a big source of the deficit nowadays.

robinph

Manic Moran wrote: »

There was a related opinion piece on CNN today, damned if I can’t find the link right now, observing on the difference between ‘private trump’ as recorded on tape, and ‘public trump’ on TV, Twitter and so on, and how it all may be a careful charade.

I don't see how it would be possible, or desirable, to be that incompetent in how you string a sentence together all the time in public and doing it deliberately. How is it useful for him to be presenting himself as so useless as not being able to speak in a coherent manner, or stay on topic for more than 5 words at a time, or constantly tell the world how great his nearest golf course is, or that Obama did it and he won the most votes before switching back to vaguely sounding like he is answering the initial question but saying how loved he is and it's really the Dems fault.

I get that politicians will try their best to not give a straight answer to questions wherever possible, but Trump isn't even on the same scale as that in his communication. He just talks about something completely different and his golf courses being great.

I don't think he could be faking the way he is communicating, talking nonsense is just all he is capable of. There may well be a puppet master behind the scenes, but Trump can't know about it or he'd have blurted it out and he shows absolutely no signs of being the master of anything at all himself.