Trump: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

[Nihilo]

. . . the overall economic performance of different parties:

'Curious: How are these data derived? Are they annual changes to GDP averaged, or are they changes over these presidents' whole terms, and then annualized?

Meaning, if years 1-4 had growth of say +1%, +2%, -1%, and +3%, is the reported number the average 5% / 4 = +1.25%, or is it +1.239% (the 5.049% growth over the four years, annualized)? It wouldn't make a big difference, which is why I say I'm only curious.

 

[The Barbarian]

My understanding is that each year's growth is averaged, those being actual measures of something. But I don't know.

I'll see if I can find out.

 

[drbrumley]

So while this tax plan isn’t a silver bullet for all that ails the US economy – and is certainly no sign that the swamp is truly being drained – anything that allows Americans to keep more of their pay check, enables more choice in healthcare, and boosts private competition to government schools is a victory worth celebrating.

Thanks to Tho Bishop of Mises.Org

 

[kmoney]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 120 countries defied President Donald Trump on Thursday and voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for the United States to drop its recent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.


Trump had threatened to cut off financial aid to countries that voted in favor. A total of 128 countries backed the resolution, which is non-binding, nine voted against and 35 abstained. Twenty-one countries did not cast a vote.

Trump’s threat appeared to have some impact, with more countries abstaining and rejecting the resolution than usually associated with Palestinian-related resolutions.


:mock: Trump

 

[patrick jane]

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - More than 120 countries defied President Donald Trump on Thursday and voted in favor of a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for the United States to drop its recent recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.


Trump had threatened to cut off financial aid to countries that voted in favor. A total of 128 countries backed the resolution, which is non-binding, nine voted against and 35 abstained. Twenty-one countries did not cast a vote.

Trump’s threat appeared to have some impact, with more countries abstaining and rejecting the resolution than usually associated with Palestinian-related resolutions.


:mock: Trump

As usual, you have a warped view of things. The UN is a farce, I just posted a great video about the UN in the Jerusalem thread. You act like this was all Trump's idea and it was never passed in the House and the Senate in 1995. But go ahead, chalk it up as a "defeat" and a "loss" for Trump, it seems to cheer you up.

 

[kmoney]

As usual, you have a warped view of things. The UN is a farce, I just posted a great video about the UN in the Jerusalem thread. You act like this was all Trump's idea and it was never passed in the House and the Senate in 1995. But go ahead, chalk it up as a "defeat" and a "loss" for Trump, it seems to cheer you up.

Oh PJ, you think you know so much. :nono:

I wouldn't call this a defeat for Trump, if you mean the actual issue of Jerusalem. This UN vote doesn't mean much. We already knew that most other countries were not in favor of the decision and this isn't going to make Trump do anything different. This makes their opposition official but I'm not sure how significant that is.

I do appreciate that 128 countries weren't afraid of Trump's threats, so perhaps that could be considered partial loss since the article indicates some effect. It'll be interesting to see how Trump responds.

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]Now, this is presidential obstruction[/h]

https://nypost.com/2017/12/18/now-this-is-presidential-obstruction/



What if a president used his power to interfere with a federal investigation involving foreign powers committing serious crimes in the United States as well as elsewhere? Such a thing would be considered a terrible scandal and, no doubt, lead to a federal probe by a special counsel who would be expected to get to the bottom of such a mess.

 

[patrick jane]

 

[rexlunae]

[h=1]Now, this is presidential obstruction[/h]

https://nypost.com/2017/12/18/now-this-is-presidential-obstruction/



What if a president used his power to interfere with a federal investigation involving foreign powers committing serious crimes in the United States as well as elsewhere? Such a thing would be considered a terrible scandal and, no doubt, lead to a federal probe by a special counsel who would be expected to get to the bottom of such a mess.

Gee, December of 2017...why do you suppose this is only coming up now? Is it maybe that they're mining the last administration for any false equivalence they might be able to manufacture to provide cover for Trump?

 

[SabathMoon]

Mueller will be Fired

Mueller will be Fired

I had the displeasure of learning Mueller was using the Trump Dossier as his guide for investigating Trump. Mueller's FBI when interviewed said it was sufficient information for starting the congressional Russia probe, as if they weren't going to do such a thing without the dossier. But saying such a thing will trigger a chain of firings in the FBI. This dossier was illegally bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

This is reported in The New American, December 4, 2017.

Since there is a separate investigation being done in New York, Donald is not escaping anything in the long term.

 

[patrick jane]

I had the displeasure of learning Mueller was using the Trump Dossier as his guide for investigating Trump. Mueller's FBI when interviewed said it was sufficient information for starting the congressional Russia probe, as if they weren't going to do such a thing without the dossier. But saying such a thing will trigger a chain of firings in the FBI. This dossier was illegally bought and paid for by Clinton and the DNC.

This is reported in The New American, December 4, 2017.

Since there is a separate investigation being done in New York, Donald is not escaping anything in the long term.

Because there's nothing for Donald to escape from.

 

[SabathMoon]

Because there's nothing for Donald to escape from.

Donald got too chummy with the Russian mafia. He is running from his past.

 

[patrick jane]

Donald got too chummy with the Russian mafia. He is running from his past.

Any evidence?

 

[The Barbarian]

It seems to be why he's hiding his tax returns. But Mueller can get them when it's time to do so.

 

[SabathMoon]

Any evidence?

Is there anything not evident? He thinks we should have a better relationship with Russia. He likes Putin. etc etc.

 

[SabathMoon]

It seems to be why he's hiding his tax returns. But Mueller can get them when it's time to do so.

I don't blame Mueller for using the dossier. I blame him for having his subordinates pretend it is good evidence. I don't believe he thinks this is good evidence.

 

[patrick jane]

Is there anything not evident? He thinks we should have a better relationship with Russia. He likes Putin. etc etc.

You're delusional too I see. Cite evidence, not your imagination. Is he the only President that ever wanted a better relationship with Russia?

 

[SabathMoon]

You're delusional too I see. Cite evidence, not your imagination. Is he the only President that ever wanted a better relationship with Russia?

He loves Putin. How more obvious do you need it to be?

 

[patrick jane]

He loves Putin. How more obvious do you need it to be?

He has said "I don't know Putin" and "Putin is not my friend" but you see love there. Whatever.

 

[rexlunae]

I don't blame Mueller for using the dossier. I blame him for having his subordinates pretend it is good evidence. I don't believe he thinks this is good evidence.

From what we've learned of McCabe's testimony, it predates Mueller's time as special counsel.