I tell you what, weed out the carryovers from the growing economy and good growth he inherited and then give me the list.

not sure what policys were passed to amass theses accomplishments

but they sure threw out some obscure stuff

Led two National Prescription Drug Take Back Days in 2017 and 2018, collecting a record number of expired and unneeded prescription drugs each time.

OMG A 2A BAN? on his watch
New rule effectively banning bump stock sales in the United States.

U.S. oil production has achieved its highest level in American history
United States is now the largest crude oil producer in the world.

he did that?

Lifted a 15-year limit on veterans’ access to their educational

benefits only new servicemembers will see any of those changes.

I was told once

If you read enough about it you will find varying accounts

The economy is like an ocean going cargo ship, it takes miles not yards to stop or turn it. Trump inherited a robust economy, one that wasn’t going to change quickly due to momentum, yet here we are two years in, about the time that cargo ship could turn and 75% of economists are predicting a recession, the Feds concur and so does the stock market. Who was captain of the ship when this turn started to show evidence, or are we going to not take credit when things go south?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I tell you what, this carryover talking point bs is speculative and unsubstantiated. And if everything in Trump's first two years is carryover, then how can he be criticized for bad policy? The economy under Obama had a little bump then remained fairly static. It was statistically by some accounts set to get worse. It would be a big stretch to attribute the very dramatic shift upward under Trump to a mere carryover. And I posted a video in another thread that tore the carryover crap to shreds.

You asked for a list. I gave it to you.

Yeah, there are varying accounts. This is one of them. You can pick and choose what account suits your purpose.

One account gives Trump credit. And lo and behold, here come the naysayers with another account which, without proof, but loaded with conjecture, says he gets no credit.

The same goes on with every President. The previous administration gets credit for the good stuff, and the current administration gets blamed for the bad.

I was asked for a list. I gave it. You can shove it up your arse for all I care.

No you actually gave me someone else’s list, which sounds like it was written by and for the right and the sitting president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what?

Most somewhat responsible politicians look at the possible results of an action based on some analysis of available data and choose the best selling outcome, they care enough to try and not be caught in a outright lie. Trump just doubles down.
What analysis led Trump to announce that Mexico would pay for the wall, he would eliminate the debt, NAFTA2.0 would pay for the wall, illegal immigration costs amounts that vary by day, etc.
I do think there is too much money and aggregated power in politics
HRC also could or would have been investigated, but we don’t typically do investigation of losers for political retribution in this country.
2020 and sealed indictments might somewhat change that
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, we do investigations as political retribution for winners. And I think Mueller could have found plenty of stuff to convict HRC if he went about it with the same vigor and tactics he's using to get Trump.

But that was not the job he was given, was it?
I’ve seen no credible evidence that Mueller cares about anything other than finding the truth and none in being on any other team.
Same motto as Superman, Truth, Justice and The American Way.
Trump’s biggest downfall will be that he has no idea how to recruit and grow a team, or lead one.
I’ve worked for a number of people in my life but never for a successful leader who would throw his hires under the bus. The best ones guide and keep you on the road to greatness with them.
Michael Cohen and the rest of Trump’s cronies wouldn’t be on that road or would have taken a early exit to a different path.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said he will sign a crime bill ...

it might be unprecedented for republicans, trump supporters and folks on the right ...though you don't have to look far to find folks on the right harshly critical of trump and his cronies..click on that conservative bastion National Review on any given day....

it's is not unprecedented for democrats and the left however, we've seen this all before...which is why the folks that you demand share your concerns don't seem to give a crap when you complain....this appears to be a tough concept for the left and media...for decades the left and liberal media have defended all of this behavior which they now find abhorrent....you are like former smokers or recovering alcoholics...or folks who recently found God....with this holier than thou attitude because you(the left generally) have suddenly seen the light...we know it's nothing more than partisan posturing...feigned indignation

it's pretty funny....

not exactly true. the 2008 recession happened pretty damn quick. the current correction happened quick.

guys, he inherited a robust economy, and he made it a little better. most business leaders say that the confidence he provides that there’s a businessman in the white house, the regulations he did away with, and the tax cut, all helped.


What are you afraid will happen, if you admit he helped the economy? no one is saying he inherited a mess. But he did things differently from his predecessor, and they pretty much worked. the market is tumbling because of profit taking, the fed, global concerns, the sense that a recession is inevitable, and his tariff war ( the only one of these things he controls).

your total lack of ability to be objective with this guy, is something to behold. it really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Never said he didn’t help somewhat help keep the ship moving forward, but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime, sure the stock market can make corrections quickly, but i wasn’t talking about the market.

While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class, certainly kept things going; his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. If you want to make the case the market is a good barameter of the economy, how is loosing well over an entire years gains anything but negative?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"but I also suspect there wouldn’t have been much difference with any other candidate, not in the first couple years. "

Maybe. No way of knowing. There are economists who say we're overdue for a recession, and that his pro-growth policies are helping delay that. The corporate tax cut is a big deal, and that was him.

"You are mistaken that the economy can turn on a dime"

Not on a dime. But not always at the pace of a cargo ship or glacier, either. I'm also not talking just about the market.

"While Trumps moves, primarily for corporate America and the upper class"

Black unemployment lowest EVER. Every move that a POTUS makes to grow the economy in a macro sense, will help the wealthy more, because they have more to invest, therefore they benefit more from growth. Did income inequality not increase when Obama got the economy back on track? How come no one cried about income inequality when Obama was exacerbating it? Can you answer that? I never, not once, heard you guys complain about income inequality from 2009-2016, and for damn sure the market gains increased income inequality. In January 2017, income inequality became a bad thing.

"his moves this past year seem to be having the opposite affect. "

You're all over the place. First you said that the economy only changes slowly, now you're saying that the moves that Trump made this year, are hurting the economy. Also, before you said there was more to the economy than the stock market, now you are focusing on the market correction, when all other economic fundamentals are healthy and robust.

So let's summarize what you are saying:

Trump inherited a healthy economy

there is more to the economy than the stock market performance

he made some moves in 2017, but they probably didn't contribute much to the economic improvement that occurred in 2017. The economic results in 2017 (which were good), aren't a result of trump.

Now in 2018, the stock market is doing poorly, everything else (unemployment and GDP and corporate profits) are favorable. And all of a sudden, (1) all that matters is stock market performance, let's ignore GDP and unemployment, and (2) NOW that "the economy" is doing poorly, and only then, does Trump own the results.

Sounds fair.

Trump made the same mistake with tax cuts as Reagan
It cost GW Bush a second term
A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"It cost GW Bush a second term"

GW Bush increased taxes when he promised not to. THAT cost him a second term.

"A more realistic tax cut would have been sustainable and could have been structured to grow the economy"

It was too much aimed at businesses, I agree. But isn't it fair to say at this point, that it is growing the economy? GDP growth Is better than it's been in a long time.

Tack on another goody.

No I'm actually not all over the place, but spin it however you like. Didn't say the stock market dive this year means the economy has turned on a dime, but I'll applaud your attempt to try to put words in my mouth. I don't have the time or desire to spend the time you and others find to type detailed and mind numbing at time responses to insure meaning is crystal clear. It was too nice a day to play golf. What most economists, the Fed's and this year clearly by the stock market fear; is that the economy and run might be coming to an end. But like I said earlier despite your attempt to read it otherwise, is that even that will take time. At the end of his 4 year term, assuming he even makes it, we can debate again how is policies helped or hurt the economy.

Does this mean that you will stop talking about Trump's bad influence on the economy for two more years?

How will you ever entertain yourselves, clearly you must be looking for someone fresh to post you links, videos and news articles to make "your" opinions known?

When have I said that something I link is "my" opinion? Are things you link "your" opinion?

I think the very few links I’ve posted I believe were about climate change and were posted to prove my point that the scientific community is in agreement on what is happening, why it’s happening and why it’s so important to try to slow it. That’s not a political opinion by one party or person I’m posting, much different and by volume night and day different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok, your links are better than mine. Somehow, I don't care. And will continue to link in the future if I think it's appropriate. And the vast majority of my posts are not links. But if they get under your skin in some teeny way, they're probably good.

No problem on this end, nothing gets under my skin, although the slow fore-some in front of us yesterday was getting frustrating for all four of us.

I appreciate we all are entitled to our own opinions and our forefathers fought hard to insure our freedom to express them, even thou Trump seems to feel that in doing so you are the enemy of the American people (reads ME). My only point in posting about the links, is that when I ask someone to give me their bullet list of accomplishments, I didn't want to go read someone else's view of what they were. Additionally for every link you post, if I took the time, I'm sure I can come up with an opposing and just as legitimate position.

But you don't.

Trump urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to change Senate rules and allow a simple majority to pass the spending bill, rather than 60 votes, a major disruption to Senate protocol known as the "nuclear option."

not sure why such behavior is not seen by Trmp fans as inappropriate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It has always required only 51 percent of the votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The 60 vote Senate rule is to get cloture on debate.

It's not unconstitutional. It's not illegal. It's a Senate self imposed rule that has changed over time. The nuclear option has already been invoked a couple of times, so the Senate rule and custom has already been changed. Appropriateness is in the eyes of the Senators. If 51 go with it, then only 51 votes are needed for cloture. Then the vote can be taken, and if 51 or 50 plus the Vice President vote to pass a bill, it goes to the Pres to be signed.

It becomes a sore spot to the party that is not in power, which will say things like it's inappropriate, even though they have done so in the past.

do you know who came
up with the nuclear option, and when? it wasn’t trump. harry reid started it. god almighty. what’s good for the goose...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device