Not sure the jury is in yet on the success or failures of his policy decisions, those typically don't show either way for years. I'm sure you have already called them successes and while I'm in favor of some, many I see as bad long term decisions.

That shouldn’t be hard to tally up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump tweets:
Of course we should have captured Osama Bin Laden long before we did. I pointed him out in my book just BEFORE the attack on the World Trade Center. President Clinton famously missed his shot. We paid Pakistan Billions of Dollars & they never told us he was living there. Fools!..

Now what the fool said in his book was:One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis …

And it is comical how the things Trump hates most, tie back to one night in 2011.

The whole issue of the hunt for bin Laden may be a sore subject for Trump because the final countdown for the operation took place during the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner when Obama roasted Trump mercilessly for his penchant for spreading conspiracy theories, such as the so-called "birther" conspiracy, which claimed that Obama wasn't an American citizen.

During a break from rehearsing that speech for the correspondents' dinner, Obama called McRaven for a final status check.
"What do you think about the intel?" Obama asked. The intelligence that bin Laden was living in Abbottabad was entirely circumstantial.
"Well, if he's there, we're going to get him. If he's not, we won't," McRaven answered.
"Exactly! It's 50-50," Obama said, according to reporting from my book about the hunt for bin Laden.
The president wrapped up the call, saying, "I couldn't have any more confidence in you than the confidence I have in you and your force. Godspeed to you and your forces. Please pass on to them my personal thanks for their service and the message that I personally will be following this mission very closely."
The bin Laden raid was, of course, a success. Not only was bin Laden killed, but also thousands of important documents about al Qaeda were recovered during the operation. As a result, it is arguably the most successful special operations mission in American history.

Then I guess I'll have to wait "for years" to make a judgment on Trump. But until we can get the numbers on how many times the NYT, the Wapost, Hillary, Bill, Bush, Reagan, Kennedy, Biden, LBJ, John Kerry, CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox, all the Dems, all the Repubs, etceteraaaaaaa, have lied or been wrong, yet still managed to convince the rest of us how good they are . . . until then I'm going to pass on the importance of Trump's numbers.

The fact that media are spending more time on stuff like counting how many times Trump, according to them, lied, exhibits for me some form of desperation. I'm guessing, if they listed each lie, that the vast majority would be either a stretch or unimportant.

Long before Trump, I have noticed "lies" by politicians, Press, editorials and opinion pieces that are biased, ignorant, wrong, false, on a daily basis. If there could be a compilation of how many times these occurred, the number would be staggering. And I'm not talking party lines here. What is essentially propaganda disguised as facts crosses party lines. Just about every political article posted on this forum can be critiqued by someone as wrong, biased, or dishonest.

I don't apologize for not recognizing our Press and media as being unerring sources of truth when it comes to political matters. On the contrary, I view them primarily as promoters of agendas. So, for me, the agenda is what matters. The Progressive agenda is anathema to me in terms of what I consider the fundamentals, the foundations, of freedom.

I understand the foundation of Progressivism and how, and why it's superficial understanding of human nature has emotionally and morally gripped so many in our wealthy, technologically advanced Western civilization.

But I believe that it leads to the very opposite of that on which this nation was founded. That is what concerns me, not the number of what those who have an agenda consider to be lies--especially if those "lies" don't amount to a hill of beans.

Not to my knowledge Jeff. But as always, actions speak louder than words. More than half the troops surveyed gave an unfavorable evaluation to Obama.It is well chronicled in a book titled Conduct Unbecoming : How Barack Obama is Destroying Our Military and Endangering our Security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some guy wrote a book, it might be true.
Here's a contemporaneous article from Military Times and it is interesting to look at the things the rank and file was unhappy and happy about.

"President Barack Obama will step down after eight years as commander in chief with one of the most influential tenures leading the U.S. military, but not necessarily the political support of service members.

His moves to slim down the armed forces, move away from traditional military might and overhaul social policies prohibiting the service of minority groups have proven divisive in the ranks. His critics have accused him of trading a strong security posture for political points, and for allowing the rise of terrorists like the Islamic State group whom the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to silence.

But Obama’s supporters define him as the Nobel Peace Prize winner who ordered the elimination of Osama bin Laden and refocused military strategy while wrestling with an uncooperative Congress and unprecedented budget restrictions. They insist the military is more nimble now, and more prepared to deal with unconventional warfare against non-traditional threats across the globe.

More than half of troops surveyed in the latest Military Times/Institute for Veterans and Military Families poll said they have an unfavorable opinion of Obama and his two-terms leading the military. About 36 percent said they approve of his job as commander in chief.

Their complaints include the president’s decision to decrease military personnel (71 percent think it should be higher), his moves to withdraw combat troops from Iraq (59 percent say it made America less safe) and his lack of focus on the biggest dangers facing America (64 percent say China represents a significant threat to the U.S.)

But more than two-thirds support Obama's mantra that securing America means building strong alliances with foreign powers. And more than 60 percent think his use of drones and special forces teams for precision strikes — instead of large-scale military operations — has helped U.S. national security.

That’s a conflicted response to a president who entered the White House vowing to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan but instead leaves as the first American president to oversee two full terms with combat troops deployed to hostile zones."

Thanks Pete for helping demonstrate my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is irritating to me is that Trump inherited a growing and pretty healthy economy, but with every bump in the stock market, he never once missed an opportunity if a mic was in front of him to take credit for the stock market rise. Now that it's lost over a year's worth of gains, now I'm down 8% after yesterday's continued down-slide, he isn't mentioning the stock market at all. He loves taking credit for what he hasn't controlled and he shuts his mouth (tough for him to do remember that) when it isn't going so good.

They did Trump too
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/p...ew-poll-shows/

It's not clear at all that the economy he inherited was growing or even healthy. I forget which thread I posted a video by an economist who explained charts of various economic indicators which showed the Obama economy was fairly stagnant after a slow improvement of the economy he inherited. And rather than growing, the indicators predicted a downward trend. And that there was a dramatic spike upward after Trump that could not be explained by trends that were developing before he came to office.

I'm no student of economics and am uncomfortable getting into its weeds. I don't know what a President can do to seriously affect the economy except via taxes and regulations. Whether anything Trump has done has helped the economy or not, it has steadily improved in dramatic ways after the tax and regulation cuts, rather than the few intermittent spikes which didn't last under Obama.

But anything can happen to crash the economy again. Presidents are in peril of being blamed for poor economies, not just praised for good ones.

The stock market, in my uneducated opinion, is even less under the thumb of the President. So, yes, Trump is foolish, if not stupid, to have taken credit for the high stock prices. And when they keep dropping he'll have serious egg on his face. And many think that a larger correction is due.

Nothing too shocking there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps this "scandal" is the product of more fake news:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...cid=spartanntp