Donald Trump & 2016 Election

[sandman]

Trump just admitted that the meeting at Trump tower was to get dirt on Hillary and threw his son under the bus. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. How would he know this if he knew nothing about the meeting? This has to be the last nail in the coffin. Impeachment proceedings must begin immediately.

YIKES!!!

Trump even tweeted the following:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!"

from the NY Times:

"Trump Tweets ‘That’s Politics!’ About Son’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer

WASHINGTON — He ran on a promise to end politics as usual.

But on Monday morning, President Trump posted a defense on Twitter of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton by saying that it was simply politics as usual.

In Mr. Trump’s newest tweet about his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and a meeting on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower, he described the gathering as routine and something almost anyone in politics would have wanted to attend......"

(DEVELOPING...)

[pilferk]

Trump just admitted that the meeting at Trump tower was to get dirt on Hillary and threw his son under the bus. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. How would he know this if he knew nothing about the meeting? This has to be the last nail in the coffin. Impeachment proceedings must begin immediately.

YIKES!!!

Trump even tweeted the following:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!"

from the NY Times:

"Trump Tweets ‘That’s Politics!’ About Son’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer

WASHINGTON — He ran on a promise to end politics as usual.

But on Monday morning, President Trump posted a defense on Twitter of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton by saying that it was simply politics as usual.

In Mr. Trump’s newest tweet about his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and a meeting on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower, he described the gathering as routine and something almost anyone in politics would have wanted to attend......"

(DEVELOPING...)

No politician would have taken that meeting.

Since the very first reports came out, pretty much every politician (except the shills, bots, and brainwashed) have said as much.  They would have reported it, appropriately, to the FBI.

And most law enforcement people, and legal analysts (who are not on the Trump payroll), agree that would be the appropriate action.

[tim_m]

Trump just admitted that the meeting at Trump tower was to get dirt on Hillary and threw his son under the bus. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. How would he know this if he knew nothing about the meeting? This has to be the last nail in the coffin. Impeachment proceedings must begin immediately.

YIKES!!!

Trump even tweeted the following:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!"

from the NY Times:

"Trump Tweets ‘That’s Politics!’ About Son’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer

WASHINGTON — He ran on a promise to end politics as usual.

But on Monday morning, President Trump posted a defense on Twitter of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton by saying that it was simply politics as usual.

In Mr. Trump’s newest tweet about his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and a meeting on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower, he described the gathering as routine and something almost anyone in politics would have wanted to attend......"

(DEVELOPING...)

No politician would have taken that meeting.

Since the very first reports came out, pretty much every politician (except the shills, bots, and brainwashed) have said as much.  They would have reported it, appropriately, to the FBI.

And most law enforcement people, and legal analysts (who are not on the Trump payroll), agree that would be the appropriate action.

Because they knew it would or should be an impeachable offense, except when you have a Congress that has no guts. At the very least he's thrown Jr under the bus for perjury.

[sandman]

Trump just admitted that the meeting at Trump tower was to get dirt on Hillary and threw his son under the bus. Raise your hand if you saw this coming. How would he know this if he knew nothing about the meeting? This has to be the last nail in the coffin. Impeachment proceedings must begin immediately.

YIKES!!!

Trump even tweeted the following:

"Most politicians would have gone to a meeting like the one Don jr attended in order to get info on an opponent. That's politics!"

from the NY Times:

"Trump Tweets ‘That’s Politics!’ About Son’s Meeting With Russian Lawyer

WASHINGTON — He ran on a promise to end politics as usual.

But on Monday morning, President Trump posted a defense on Twitter of his son’s meeting with a Russian lawyer promising sensitive government information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton by saying that it was simply politics as usual.

In Mr. Trump’s newest tweet about his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and a meeting on June 9, 2016, at Trump Tower, he described the gathering as routine and something almost anyone in politics would have wanted to attend......"

(DEVELOPING...)

minor detail I left out from these. they are both from July 2017!

so all this hysteria by the media the last few days is fake news. it was nothing new. Trump tweeted this over a year ago. the media went crazy over a year ago. yet the media reported the most recent tweet as if it was new info. and liberals fell for it.

so I can't say I didn't see this coming, because we already knew this.

also, it wasn't the final nail in the coffin a year ago. not sure why it would be now.

[pilferk]

minor detail I left out from these. they are both from July 2017!

so all this hysteria by the media the last few days is fake news. it was nothing new.

Ah, the grasping of the truly desperate. Intellectual dishonesty and gotcha tricks! How much fun!!  I think the question of how serious to take you, and your "troll" status is pretty much answered, now.  At least that question is answered....

It's not fake news (which would imply it's false....and it's not..you have his own words right there).  SOME of it is old news.  But the more recent tweet is far more definitive than his previous tweets (go on, go back and read them) about the particulars.

Trump was commenting, in July of 2017, on his sons emails that had recently been released. He was commenting on his SONS mindset.

This is a bit different (and more definitive) in terms of Trumps Sr's mindset, rather than Trump Jrs.

Nuance isn't fake news, though I know it's often lost on the conservatives, nowadays.   

Of course, you know all that and are just looking to troll, so....I'm not sure why I'm even bothering explaining it.

Posterity and context, I guess.

Trump tweeted this over a year ago. the media went crazy over a year ago. yet the media reported the most recent tweet as if it was new info. and liberals fell for it.

There is new news in the recent tweet stream.

A much more definitive depiction of the meeting, and some indications that Trump Sr knew that from VERY early on (if not before the meeting happened).

Again, nuance.

And nobody "fell" for anything....except you, when you voted for Trump.

We all remember his comments when Trump Jr's emails were released (by Trump Jr).

so I can't say I didn't see this coming, because we already knew this.

And yet...you don't seem to care.

One wonders why that might be?

also, it wasn't the final nail in the coffin a year ago. not sure why it would be now.

It won't be.

Because this Republican Congress is a bunch of feckless ass lickers who are more interested in power than anything else.

Edit: And, FYI, since I'm the ONLY one who responded, and the sentiment in that response is pretty much the same sentiment I expressed last July when Trump Jr's emails came out....it seems like your tactic backfired.  You didn't "get" anyone....or make any semblance of a point.

So....sorry? I guess? That Troll attempt was an epic fail.....

[tim_m]

It won't be.

Because this Republican Congress is a bunch of feckless ass lickers who are more interested in power than anything else.

Which is why the democrats at least have to take the house in November and if possible the Senate. I know they can't get a 2/3 majority but if they can get enough to have a majority and then some republicans with a pair maybe we can end this shit show.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

 There is no denying the economy is doing well. If it means having an economy in which those who work hard can be more successful, by all means let the shit show continue.

You cant impeach someone just because you have a personal animus toward them. Someone needs to explain that to Maxine Waters and Al Green in congress. If they find a crime  has been committed, different story.


 

 
 

[tim_m]

Keep telling yourself there's no evidence he's done anything wrong, Mayne you'll eventually believe it.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Keep telling yourself there's no evidence he's done anything wrong, Mayne you'll eventually believe it.

Has Trump done anything wrong? Sure he has. But what concrete evidence is there that a crime has been committed by him that is a basis for impeachment? Actual evidence......

Let me ask this of you, has Trump done anything good for the country? Anything at all?

[pilferk]

There is no denying the economy is doing well. If it means having an economy in which those who work hard can be more successful, by all means let the shit show continue.

There is no denying economic growth occurred at a similar, and in many cases faster, rate under Obama.

There is no denying that wages are stagnant, and real wages (aka purchasing power) have plummeted under Trump.

There is no denying that average (and esp adjusted) GDP growth, unemployment rates, and the stock market ALL did better under Obama (and, in fact, better under Obama's last 4 years).

There is no denying the GOP and Trump have increased our deficit by 20% in 18 months and are spending faster than any democratic administration, EVER, in the history of our country.

As for the last bit, that's Republican bullshit spin.  Nothing they've done, since Trump took office, has resulted in "people who work hard being more successful".  The pittance you were given in the tax cut is being offset and then some by higher prices, higher inflation, and higher interest rates.  Oh, and we're taking on an unsustainable debt burden that, eventually, is going to see your taxes go up.

I mean, CORPORATIONS are sure getting to keep more (and not parlaying that into reinvestment or hiring, but into stock buy backs and dividends for shareholders)....66 BILLION less in tax revenue for Fiscal Quarter 1.  And that is NOT offset by any other increases....there is a pittance increase in individual tax payers payments/revenue.  So, less revenues Oh...and spending INCREASED 4% vs the previous year.

Trump hasn't fucked up the economy too badly (yet).  That's about the best you can say.  He has literally enacted NO policies, and championed NO legislation to improve it, though.

Of course, we've gone over this over and over and over and over again....and you continue to ignore it.  You continue to argue that your anecdotal observations Trump (pun FIRMLY intended) actual data.

You cant impeach someone just because you have a personal animus toward them. Someone needs to explain that to Maxine Waters and Al Green in congress. If they find a crime  has been committed, different story. 

Yeah? Rob Rosenstein.

The House defines what High Crimes and Misdemeanors mean.  Doesn't have to have any basis in legal definitions.  So say the courts and legal scholars.

[pilferk]

Has Trump done anything wrong? Sure he has. But what concrete evidence is there that a crime has been committed by him that is a basis for impeachment? Actual evidence......

There is plenty of actual evidence to give you pause.  Impeachment CAN be about suspicion.  Remember, the trial takes place in the Senate, which is where you would need actual evidence.  Every case doesn't need to be a slam dunk indictment...neither does every impeachment. 

I also think there is plenty of evidence for an obstruction case.  His own words, with Lester Holt, would almost be enough for that.

You'll poo poo all of it because, well.....obvious reasons (and history) says you will.

But there is certainly more there than the Repubs have on Rosenstein. Yet they could proceed with Impeachment because it is their right to do so (and define the "crimes" he has committed).

Still: on this, I somewhat agree.  We have to wait for Mueller to finish, and get all the facts, because there will be exactly one crack at this.  It's premature to call for impeachment re: conspiracy, fraud, and potentially treason. Just not for the reasons you think.

They could impeach him on a couple other items, though.  Campaign finance violations (there's more than enough evidence of this right now), violations of emoluments clause (lawsuit working its way through the courts, now), the actions of his charity foundation (being litigated now), and a couple other things.  Which you will promptly ignore or try to explain away (while calling Hillary a horrible candidate/person with there being FAR less evidence).

As a foot note to all this: The rub is that the courts, and legal scholars, say the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" is solely at the discretion of the House.  In other words, they can call anything they want "High crimes and Misdemeanors", whether its an actual crime or not.  So, if they see "collusion" as a high crime, whether it's an actual legally defined crime or not, they can impeach for it.

And the Senate has sole discretion over the trial but WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE HOUSE DEFINITION. So, if the House says collusion is a crime, and defines what that means, the Senate has to conduct the trial based on that definition.  They can't, for example, take the Impeachment from the house and say "Well, collusion isn't a crime so he's innocent".  They have to, in good faith, determine his guilt or innocence based on what the House has defined.

So, in short, your assertion is objectively incorrect.  The members of the house understand the process better than you do, apparently.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-trump-treason-oath-of-office-0720-20180719-story.html#

According to the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall have the “sole power of Impeachment.” Scholars [ed: and the Courts, both under Nixon and Clinton] have thus concluded that the meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is at the discretion of the House as a political — rather than a legal — matter.

And when the framers debated the language and ultimately the definition of those terms at the constitutional convention in 1787, they came to no clear conclusion.

One of the most active participants in those debates, Alexander Hamilton, argued that impeachable offenses were those that involved abuse or violation of the public trust. That’s an ambiguous category that doesn’t necessarily require violation of any criminal statute, but rather depends on the judgment of the electorate and its representatives.

As Hamilton noted, impeachable offenses “are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they chiefly related to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

The current environment is highly charged politically, with divided loyalties and extreme polarization. In this context, the question whether the president violated his oath of office and whether his actions constitute grounds for impeachment will be resolved — as Hamilton expected — not by a legal process in the courts. Instead, it will be resolved through the political judgment of the people’s representatives in Congress.

So there you go.

Let me ask this of you, has Trump done anything good for the country? Anything at all?

He brought home prisoners from NK.

That about covers it.

So far, everything else he's done has been shit, turned to shit, or had no actual impact (or not the intended impact).

Oh, wait, I shouldn't have answered your question. Never mind.

You are so entrenched in your opinion why bother?  When you climb up from that Trumpian mud (shit) hole you've been rolling around in the last year or so maybe Ill reconsider.

There! Did I do it right? 

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Pilferk, I wasn't directing my post at you, I was curious on what Tim_m's opinion was.  Him and I disagree on much when it comes to politics but he doesn't get  all Pilferky in his responses. 

Your view of the economy is at odds VS the actual economy.  It seems like you are trying very hard to deny it is doing well. This is the main reason why Trump's approval ratings are hanging just below 50% on average. If the economy tanks Trump goes down with it.  People are no longer afraid to invest and spend their money they were keeping hidden under the proverbial mattress and the removal of regulations have made it a better business climate.

My business deals mostly with other businesses and Ive seen it firsthand. My small business is directly affected. I don't work for a huge company or government agency that is insulated from the ups and downs of the economy.

Granted this is from January, but this pretty much spells it out on the economy.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.

Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.

Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.

The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.

A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.

The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.

A year ago in the same survey, economists awarded President Obama mixed grades. Most saw his policies as positive for financial stability, but neutral-to-negative for GDP growth and negative for long-term growth. By contrast, Trump was seen as neutral to positive for long-term gains.

Why would Trump rate higher than Obama with this group? Economists point to the upturn in business confidence that accompanied Trump’s election, and tie that to increasing business investment. Spending on capital goods accelerated sharply over the first three quarters of last year, growing at an annualized rate of 6.2 percent.

Such outlays will spur productivity gains and lead to wage hikes, creating a virtuous circle complete with rising consumer confidence and spending.

Unhappily Trump, voters have not yet caught up with the experts. Democrats have done an excellent job of trashing Trump’s policies, issuing hysterical alarms over the supposed dangers of deregulation (toxic water, foul air!) and vilifying the GOP tax bill.

Democrats are terrified that the tax cuts will be a pleasant surprise to those who believed House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) when she called the bill Armageddon, and when Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) declared it a “kick in the gut to the middle class.”

They are even more terrified of the bonuses and raises being handed out by employers large and small, who credit the tax bill for those unexpected benefits. Democrats are trying to convince voters that those $1,000 bonuses and pay hikes are “crumbs” as multi-millionaire Nancy Pelosi recently said.

Maybe $1,000 is “pathetic” to Pelosi, but for a great many Americans, it is a big and welcome windfall.

So far, Democrats are winning the messaging war, using President Trump’s unpopularity to sour Americans on everything the White House does.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll, a record 66 percent of those surveyed graded the economy as “excellent” or “good” but 49 percent of those surveyed credited Obama while only 40 percent named Trump.

That poll, though, seems biased. Only 23 percent of those questioned were Republicans, while 34 percent described themselves as Democrats, and 38 percent said they were Independents. It also asked the questions in a way that appeared likely to elicit an anti-Trump response.

As the months pass, it will be increasingly difficult for Democrats to separate rising wages and faster growth from the tax bill sponsored by Republicans and the rollback of regulations, which has encouraged an upturn in business investment.

Even the New York Times, no friend to President Trump, has described the “wave of optimism” sweeping over Americans business leaders, saying it is “beginning to translate into the sort of investment in new plants, equipment and factory upgrades that bolsters economic growth, spurs job creation — and may finally raise wages significantly.”

The Times ran the piece on New Year's Day, pretty much guaranteeing it would attract few readers, but still.

More than two million workers have now received bonuses and or raises, with their bosses telling them the benefits are flowing from the GOP tax bill. That number will continue to grow as other companies are pressured into sharing the proceeds from lower taxes. This is a powerful and persuasive movement that is gaining momentum every day, which is probably why Democrats are so foolishly belittling the payouts.

A vast majority of Americans feel more optimistic about their prospects than they have in a decade. Will they really want to rock the boat come November and throw out the party at the helm? We shall see.

 http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

[pilferk]

Pilferk, I wasn't directing my post at you, I was curious on what Tim_m's opinion was.  Him and I disagree on much when it comes to politics but he doesn't get  all Pilferky in his responses. 

I can have tim copy and paste my response if you like.

And I know, it's tough when you are confronted with facts and data.  It must really suck for you.

The data based challenge to your world view is uncomfortable, I'm sure.

Your view of the economy is at odds VS the actual economy.  It seems like you are trying very hard to deny it is doing well. This is the main reason why Trump's approval ratings are hanging just below 50% on average. If the economy tanks Trump goes down with it.  People are no longer afraid to invest and spend their money they were keeping hidden under the proverbial mattress and the removal of regulations have made it a better business climate.

No, my view of the economy is the ACTUAL economy, and the numbers that represent it.  Not some anecdotal perception being influenced by my partisan beliefs and NEED for Trump to be successful. Or, for that matter, my partisan beliefs and perception of ANYTHING.  Because the numbers are the numbers, and have been the numbers, so are easy to compare against previous (and future) numbers.

And I didn't say the economy wasn't doing well.  You continue to make that assertion, and distort what I'm saying.  See, we've had this discussion before. And I'm saying the same thing then that I'm saying now.

I said (as I have over and over again) Trump has done nothing to really effect the economy, so far. And the things he HAS done (tariffs, the tax cut bill, market destabilization and bullying) have had negative effects, not positive ones.  So far, even those effects have been minor (though it's driving down real wages right now).

It's funny, though.  When I've asked you for specifics to refute THAT...I get:

a) A misrepresentation of what I've clearly said, over and over and over again
b) Nothing to refute it

In short I get the equivalent of a kid sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes, and shouting "I can't hear you" as loudly as he can.  Or a thinly veiled cop out. Or both.

At least you passingly mention deregulation, this time. Of course, there's zero evidence to support that it's had any effect on the current economy, but at least it's something.  FYI: Trumps cuts haven't had any measurable effect on any economic indicator that I've seen.  If you've seen different, please share!

And if there was ANY serious investor who missed the market gains under Obama's watch by stuffing their money in a mattress, they are a moron and not worth taking seriously.  The market gained FAR more, in Obama's 8 years, than it has in Trumps 1.5.  In total, by percentage, and in aggregate.  And not just the Dow or S&P, either.  The WHOLE MARKET.  I'd love to see data that people were "afraid" to invest, especially over Obama's last 4 years.  That's your political bias talking and its bullshit.

And Trumps average approval rating is well under 50%. Stop drinking the Fox News Kool Aid.

RCP average is 43.4% and that's skewed by an outlier of Rasmussen (a notoriously right leaning poll who's methodology is questionable) at 47% (which is 4 points higher than the 42.8% aggregate, otherwise).

His DISAPPROVAL rating is 52%!

Again, data is your friend.

My business deals mostly with other businesses and Ive seen it firsthand. My small business is directly affected. I don't work for a huge company or government agency that is insulated from the ups and downs of the economy.

You anecdotes DON'T TRUMP DATA.

Period. End of story.

The data tells the story of the economy, not what you think you see. Not the success or failure or high and low of your business. I'm glad to hear you're doing well....but it doesn't matter in this discussion.

I saw a bear outside yesterday.  You should go hide down there in Florida...since you'll obviously see one today that will certainly try to maul you.

This is a simple concept...I know you're being intentionally obtuse about it, but, for posterity: Personal anecdotes aren't data. Data is data.

Granted this is from January, but this pretty much spells it out on the economy.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.

 http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

1) Did you read the byline? BY LIZ PEEK, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 01/14/18 09:30 AM EST  1,771 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

2) Economists do NOT agree on that front. Economists surveyed, very NARROWLY, by the WSJ think that. In fact, most economists say that Trumps effect on the economy, at this point, is minimal.  Oddly, that's pretty much what I've said. Weird, huh?  Almost like I'm paying attention to the people who actually know about this stuff, and not the Cheeto in Chief and Fox News.

3) The Wall Street Journal survey they're talking about was debunked, both on methodology and on who they included in the survey. It was/is junk science. True when they did it regarding Obama, still true when they do it regarding Trump.

4) Here's an ACTUAL good, real world, explanation (it is opinion! but a well reasoned one) of why Obama deserves more credit.  Economic policies typically take YEARS to manifest.  We are still living in the Obama economy.  And Trump, other than being a cheerleader for his dittoheads, hasn't really done anything that would have an effect on the economy.

https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/economic-boom-who-deserves-credit/

If your point is that he's a great cheerleader, and that effects economic growth, great.

So is Warren Buffet.  Neither need to be (or should be) President to do that.  Policy and legislation is what matters most in that seat.

Now, lets try this again and see what happens:

What, SPECIFICALLY, has Trump done, in terms of policy and legislation, that you think has improved the economy?  What actions has he taken? What policies or EO's has he enacted? What legislation has he championed and signed?

[sandman]

minor detail I left out from these. they are both from July 2017!

so all this hysteria by the media the last few days is fake news. it was nothing new.

Ah, the grasping of the truly desperate. Intellectual dishonesty and gotcha tricks!

That Troll attempt was an epic fail.....

more insults. shocker. please hit me up with more. I love it! it makes Trump's time as prez even more fun, if that is even possible.

epic fail? It clearly ruffled your feathers. I got you to waste time out of your day with another bloviated post that no one fully reads.  

[sandman]

Pilferk, I wasn't directing my post at you, I was curious on what Tim_m's opinion was.  Him and I disagree on much when it comes to politics but he doesn't get  all Pilferky in his responses. 

Your view of the economy is at odds VS the actual economy.  It seems like you are trying very hard to deny it is doing well. This is the main reason why Trump's approval ratings are hanging just below 50% on average. If the economy tanks Trump goes down with it.  People are no longer afraid to invest and spend their money they were keeping hidden under the proverbial mattress and the removal of regulations have made it a better business climate.

My business deals mostly with other businesses and Ive seen it firsthand. My small business is directly affected. I don't work for a huge company or government agency that is insulated from the ups and downs of the economy.

Granted this is from January, but this pretty much spells it out on the economy.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.

Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.

Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.

The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.

A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.

The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.

BINGO!

[pilferk]

more insults. shocker. please hit me up with more. I love it! it makes Trump's time as prez even more fun, if that is even possible.

epic fail? It clearly ruffled your feathers. I got you to waste time out of your day with another bloviated post that no one fully reads.  

They weren't "insults" (show me where I called you a name or directly attacked you personally).  They were depictions of your tactics.  If that bothers you...tough shit.

And thank you, honestly, for admitting you're a troll in your own words. It certainly will make it clear to anyone reading this thread just how serious to take you in this discussion and it saves me from having to wonder, even a tiny bit.

Dude, you're not capable of ruffling my feathers.

Every time I post here, I'm having fun. Even when it's responding to obvious trolls.  Sorry to ruin your trolling. 

Hint: Most of the time I'm laughing at you, and the good Senator. 

And the fact you don't fully read them...and admit it...well, that just proves my point even more.

So yeah, epic fail AND you've just insulted yourself.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, I wasn't directing my post at you, I was curious on what Tim_m's opinion was.  Him and I disagree on much when it comes to politics but he doesn't get  all Pilferky in his responses. 

Your view of the economy is at odds VS the actual economy.  It seems like you are trying very hard to deny it is doing well. This is the main reason why Trump's approval ratings are hanging just below 50% on average. If the economy tanks Trump goes down with it.  People are no longer afraid to invest and spend their money they were keeping hidden under the proverbial mattress and the removal of regulations have made it a better business climate.

My business deals mostly with other businesses and Ive seen it firsthand. My small business is directly affected. I don't work for a huge company or government agency that is insulated from the ups and downs of the economy.

Granted this is from January, but this pretty much spells it out on the economy.

Economists agree: Trump, not Obama, gets credit for economy

Who deserves credit for the booming economy? This is not a petty argument. How voters answer the question could well determine whether Democrats retake the House of Representatives come November.

Trump and Obama (and their admirers) are slugging it out, both claiming that it is their policies that have led to the ongoing economic expansion, steady job growth and higher stock prices.

Happily for President Trump, the pros agree with him. A recent survey of economists suggest it is President Trump, and not Obama, who should be taking a bow.

The Wall Street Journal asked 68 business, financial and academic economists who was responsible for the strengthening of the economy, and most “suggested Mr. Trump’s election deserves at least some credit” for the upturn.

A majority said the president had been “somewhat” or “strongly” positive for job creation, gross domestic product growth and the rising stock market.

The pros cite the White House’s push for lighter regulation and the recent tax bill as critical to a pro-growth environment; more than 90 percent of the group thought the tax bill would boost GDP expansion over the next two years.

BINGO!

Except...not. You're missing 3 spaces on that card, somewhere.  You've got the free space, and maybe one other. Definitely not Bingo.

The tax bill has not stimulated growth at all.  The majority of the corporate money has been used for stock buy backs and dividends, not reinvestments. And the individual breaks?  Not enough to make a difference in the economy, and largely (if not totally) offset by inflation, cost of living increases, and higher prices stemming from other economic factors (like the tariffs Trump has decided are the best thing since sliced bread, and have been a thing conservatives have HATED since forever). That's why we're seeing growth rates at similar, to slightly slower (depending on the specific metric we're talking about), rates, on average, than we did under Obama.  If the tax bill had had an effect, you'd have seen surges.  And yet...nada. There is no data to show the tax cuts have created a positive effect on the economy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2018/05/02/has-the-tcja-supercharged-the-economy-the-data-dont-show-it/

And not for nothing: The Tax bill is wildly unpopular, and it's pretty obvious why in the Fiscal Q1 tax revenue reports that recently came out.

Trumps reduction of regulation (despite his crowing) has been minimal, and not all that effective.  Again, data doesn't show any significant corresponding spikes (or even changes) in growth around the times he has enacted the deregulation. Even if you look at the actual industries in a more microcosmic way....the changes are minimal.  Look at US Steel (who the President lied about last week) or the coal industry: Neither have seen nearly the booms promised by Trump.

 This is an ongoing lib vs conserv debate, but TRUMPS changes, so far, firmly support the lib side: Deregulation has minimal effect (at least short term) on the economy.

Long term, we'll see.  I have my doubts.  Clinton tried it, and it ended up biting us all in the ass with the subprime mortgage crisis (and, it should be noted, Trump is doing the same thing, and rolling back THOSE regulations).  It didn't work under Bush, who slashed regulation, especially EPA type regulations, more deeply than Trump has (OK, the recent EPA change on asbestos might put him over the top, in terms of ridiculousness, from Bush)...and we all saw how that worked out for the economy (Higher gas prices, bloated oil and gas companies who did nothing to help the consumer).

Keep in mind, the sentence you highlighted was speculative.  In January, there was NO way to gauge the tax cut bill impact. Again, this is one of the issues with the WSJ survey. 

These were EXACTLY the two things I supposed the good Senator was going to bring up, but hasn't.  So thanks for that! 

Neither has had an effect on the current economy...and the tax cut bill is, right now, doing exactly what the dems said it would: Bolstering corporate coffers and padding the pockets of institutional investors/rich folks, not really helping the individual or small business owner much, and not leading to reinvestment.

[pilferk]

Here's a decent OPINION article on Trumps first year in terms of deregulation, and it's effects:

https://www.theregreview.org/2018/01/29/lets-be-real-trumps-first-year-regulation/

Its well researched, and there's lots of other good, supporting, evidence in there from places like Forbes, Bloomberg, etc.

[tim_m]

As Piferk has said there's plenty of evidence Trump has done things that could be impeachable offenses. Not necessarily crimes in a legal sense but that isn't need for impeachment. A quick rundown of things that could be impeachable.

https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/


There's also this, a possible direct violation of Emoulents clause. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-s-d-c-hotel-clubhouse-his-fans-may-also-n898041

[tim_m]

https://www.southcarolinaradionetwork.com/2018/08/07/tv-manufacturer-which-once-promised-500-jobs-says-it-will-close-winnsboro-plant/

So much winning, i just can't stand all the winning!