President Trump

User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

Jim, completely agree with your assessment....

David, love your "clicky!" :)

Trump tapping Newt is kind of like Syphillis naming Cancer as its running mate. Good luck with that....

Blanquito, excusing Hillary's behavior based on some kind of precedent established by Powell or Rice is off the ranch. First, the system didn't exist when Powell was Sec - he's the one who helped establish it. Among the emails supposedly "classified" were him sending notes to other State staff to cheerlead for getting on board with email. There are twelve like this - 12 - between both Sec's against 65,000 for Hillary. This isn't about her "careless" email habits. Against direct instruction to the contrary, she set up her own email server and deleted half of what was on there. That is utterly unprecedented and will never happen again. If you think it would be important to include Powell and Rice in the investigation I would fully support that, but I think it would only make her look worse by direct comparison. You may decide she is worthy of support regardless (especially given the alternatives) but it is denial to conclude she's clean in this.

Like Jim, I can only conclude we have two thoroughly shitty candidates from the establishment parties to choose between. I vote neither.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by jal »

JScott wrote:You may decide she is worthy of support regardless (especially given the alternatives)
Yup, I agree with the above statement, I give her the benefit of the doubt especially since I don't think intent could be proven.
JScott wrote: I can only conclude we have two thoroughly shitty candidates from the establishment parties to choose between. I vote neither.
That's where we disagree, I think we have one extremely shitty candidate, without a doubt in my mind the worst one ever to be nominated, and one iffy candidate. I would take iffy over shitty. I think a non-vote may help shitty win, and I know I wouldn't want to wake up the next day with Trump as president.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
Jay Winton
Posts: 1836
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:06 pm
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE USA
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Jay Winton »

Iffy over shitty. Again I say, what a mess.
User avatar
Racer Chris
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Racer Chris »

From Stan Marsh on South Park:
"Every election is a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwich."

Iffy for President, 2016!
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

Jacques, I understand your point of view regarding the election. I obviously disagree but I understand it. I'm weary of the lesser of two evils, especially when the evils keep getting "eiviler."

Regarding this issue, though, intent is not a requirement of the statute. Comey invoked it purely for political/practical reasons. She is guilty as hell and there's no way around that.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-com ... mey-225216

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-mak ... 1467760857
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Lots of guilty people never get charged. Just because there is a group loudly clamoring for charges doesn't in and of itself mean it's appropriate. That's the job of people with more perspective, like Comey. I agree that practicality led to Comey's decision not to recommend charges. I don't think that decision was political. To pointedly list all the things she did wrong and state so in a nationally televised press conference, vs. just making a statement and letting the report speak for itself, was political. He gave the Rs a treasure trove of material. Not that Trump will be able to figure out what to do with it.

My take on the situation is almost identical to Jacques'. Iffy vs. shitty. Trump is outright scary. Clinton is no less smarmy than any of the mainstream candidates, and she has the knowledge to do the job, if allowed. I also want her in there to appoint a few Supreme Court judges, hopefully moving the court further left, or at least preventing a shift to the right. If Trump trumps himself, she may actually have a Senate willing to do their Constitutional duty and hold hearings, and even approve them.

The Iffy vs Shitty comparison raises another question for the group: Who was the last Democratic or Republican Presidential Nominee that you felt rose above "Iffy?"
User avatar
Racer Chris
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Racer Chris »

I've always been 100% behind Barack Obama, never thought he was Iffy.
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by jal »

DavidG wrote: The Iffy vs Shitty comparison raises another question for the group: Who was the last Democratic or Republican Presidential Nominee that you felt rose above "Iffy?"
Agreed, very few, maybe none in my lifetime. But none went down to the real shitty level.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

My ranking of recent presidents:
Obama = very good
George W Bush = extra shitty
Clinton = okay to good
George HW Bush = okay to good
Reagan = shitty (started destruction of good government and middle class, incarnated an entire generation of minorities)
Carter = okay to good
Nixon = shitty, but started EPA so better than W.
Ford = no opinion
LBJ = both shitty (Vietnam) and excellent (Great Society)

2016 predictions
Trump = worse than any above
Hillary = okay to good
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

This is like ranking Bordeaux vintages. We even have Left Bank vs. Right Bank...
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Blanquito wrote:My ranking of recent presidents:
Obama = very good - best President in my life time, inherited a truly poison chalice
George W Bush = extra shitty - most Presidents have one fuck up he had four
Clinton = okay to good - he was lucky, the business cycle was kind to him, lot of bad things seeded in his watch (Glass -Stragel)
George HW Bush = okay to good - agreed
Reagan = shitty (started destruction of good government and middle class, incarnated an entire generation of minorities) - led a Conservative revolution with Maggie, very much a figurehead but remarkably few f**k ups
Carter = okay to good - difficult economy, under-rated President, unfairly denigrated, benefitted from not having obstructionist Congress because there were no corporate contributions in those days - very principled
Nixon = shitty, but started EPA so better than W. - remarkably crooked for his time
Ford = no opinion - he couldn't chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time
LBJ = both shitty (Vietnam) and excellent (Great Society) - what Patrick said

2016 predictions
Trump = worse than any above - scares the shit out of any decent human being
Hillary = okay to good
- the most tainted, unprincipled (hopefully) President (of the free world) in waiting. She is bright but incompetent and has terrible organisation skills. Obama is light years ahead of her.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Just to be clear my rejoinder to Patrick's previous post...not sure how I messed that up
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

DavidG wrote:Lots of guilty people never get charged. Just because there is a group loudly clamoring for charges doesn't in and of itself mean it's appropriate.
David, agree completely. But the converse of this - and the point I'm trying to make - is that lack of charges based on prosecutorial discretion does not equal innocence. She's guilty. She lied a lot. And she got away with it. Versus turd sandwich. Ugh.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

I like to troll around the internet with comments like, "You know the constitution is a great document, one of the greatest, but it's not perfect. It's times like this Congress needs to be able to enact bills of attainder when you know someone is guilty as hell and should be punished." I get tremendous comments, very positive comments, and incredible numbers of thumbs up, likes. Off the charts. I should run for President. Really. Thinking about it, actually, would be a really, really good thing.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

A few undecideds may have gone over to the Trump camp tonight.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

JScott wrote:
DavidG wrote:Lots of guilty people never get charged. Just because there is a group loudly clamoring for charges doesn't in and of itself mean it's appropriate.
David, agree completely. But the converse of this - and the point I'm trying to make - is that lack of charges based on prosecutorial discretion does not equal innocence. She's guilty. She lied a lot. And she got away with it. Versus turd sandwich. Ugh.
Scott, I agree that it doesn't equal innocence. But it doesn't equal guilt either.* The evidence would no doubt look different in a court of law than it does in the media.** Neither side has a verdict to hang it's hat on. So we decide based on how we interpret what we do see.


*I'd bring up "Presumed innocent until proven guilty," but... OJ.
**I've been watching Law & Order reruns, so I should know! ;)
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20108
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

A few undecideds may have gone over to the Trump camp tonight.
Sadly my predictions of 1968-style violence are coming true. I fear assassination attempts on the horizon. We've already had at least one on Trump.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

JimHow wrote: Sadly my predictions of 1968-style violence are coming true. I fear assassination attempts on the horizon. We've already had at least one on Trump.
Say it ain't so...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/us/da ... oting.html
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

DavidG wrote:
JScott wrote:
DavidG wrote:Lots of guilty people never get charged. Just because there is a group loudly clamoring for charges doesn't in and of itself mean it's appropriate.
David, agree completely. But the converse of this - and the point I'm trying to make - is that lack of charges based on prosecutorial discretion does not equal innocence. She's guilty. She lied a lot. And she got away with it. Versus turd sandwich. Ugh.
Scott, I agree that it doesn't equal innocence. But it doesn't equal guilt either.* The evidence would no doubt look different in a court of law than it does in the media.** Neither side has a verdict to hang it's hat on. So we decide based on how we interpret what we do see.


*I'd bring up "Presumed innocent until proven guilty," but... OJ.
**I've been watching Law & Order reruns, so I should know! ;)
Point taken. It is true that she will not have Treason on her record. Like OJ, she is innocent as far as the State is concerned. The only way this would look different in court is if she could prove classified material wasn't classified, the home server didn't exist, or she wasn't Secretary of State. Nothing else matters. I only watch some Law and Order, but I'm pretty sure none of that is likely. :)
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

JimHow wrote:
A few undecideds may have gone over to the Trump camp tonight.
Sadly my predictions of 1968-style violence are coming true. I fear assassination attempts on the horizon. We've already had at least one on Trump.
Just how ugly is this going to get? There is some really nasty stuff on social media.....
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by RDD »

JScott wrote: Regarding this issue, though, intent is not a requirement of the statute. Comey invoked it purely for political/practical reasons. She is guilty as hell and there's no way around that.
Well I'll have to go with the basis of law.
She's presumed innocent until proven guilty.
So indict and convict and then she's guilty.

But then I'm not a country lawyer.

http://overlawyered.com/2015/03/just-be ... re-guilty/
User avatar
JScott
Posts: 400
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:37 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JScott »

We've beaten this to death. I think we're debating semantics. She has not been convicted of anything. She is therefore not guilty of anything as far as the State is concerned, in the strictly legal sense. I totally acknowledge and concede that point. She also absolutely and egregiously violated the statute. In that sense she is absolutely guilty. You don't have to go to jail to be guilty of stealing cookies. Is OJ innocent? Nixon was pardoned. As far as the State is concerned that offense is absolved. An election is precisely the court of public opinion. Whether the court bangs the gavel does not change the reality of her action and does not make her rise in my estimation when I'm deciding whether she deserves the office. The truth is I didn't like her before this any way, and I think that bias makes an enormous difference on how either side will want to parse this. That's how this works and I understand the other viewpoint.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Scott, I agree with every word in your post above, with the sole exception that I did like her before this, thus my bias.

This will play out in the court of public opinion and the people will have the last say in November. I find it hard to believe that the Republicans wont be able to sink Clinton's candidacy with this, despite the lack of an indictment. But the Rs have a pretty large stone around their necks in Trump. I wonder if they would be better or worse off if they tried to find some technicality by which they could dump him.

Meanwhile, blood was running in the streets in Dallas last night... Jim's prophecy appears to be coming true.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

Charlie Manson was a tad early with his call for Helter Skelter but he's looking prophetic now.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

Moving on from the statutes in question (whatever they are), maybe we can beat the perjury issue some now? So is it correct that she made a categorical statement to Congress (i.e. "none of") and how do we feel about 3 in 30,0000 (if those are the correct numbers) not being "none" and/or being material/immaterial. Jump ball, anyone?
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by jal »

I honestly don't care about "emailgate"
I don't believe there was intent to do any harm, the FBI recommends no charges. Case closed.
My number one concern is stopping Trump.
Iffy over shitty.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by jal »

And as far as the list Patrick and Ian drew, they were all iffy but not one of them (no, not even GW Bush or Nixon or Carter) was shitty, they all made mistakes (granted, some bigger than others), they all did ok things, but in my opinion, they all did it with the intention of shaping the nation in a way they thought would benefit it. Feel free to disagree, but that's my opinion.

Trump is a standard of shitty that no one has ever reached before. He's there to make Trump great, he could care less about anyone or anything but himself, and that's probably the nicest thing I could say about him.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

The problem with Nixon was means (and his paranoia which caused him to employ them) not ends or policies (you don't have to agree with those ends/policies to acknowledge they were reasoned). And as far as means is concerned he was simply an extreme (perhaps by orders of magnitude) example of what I think a lot of executives have done or contemplated. They all want to avoid laws constraining them. Some find loopholes or commission GC memoranda to support them. Nixon of course just broke them flat out. W, and perhaps more so Cheney and advisors thereto, seemed a bit over opportunistic and not terribly forthright in some of their overreach. But all in all I agree with Jacques that Trump is sui generis. Clinton I would put squarely in the Nixonian mold. I doubt her vision is to create "one nation, under Saud" as some say.
User avatar
Racer Chris
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 2:41 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Racer Chris »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:Moving on from the statutes in question (whatever they are), maybe we can beat the perjury issue some now? So is it correct that she made a categorical statement to Congress (i.e. "none of") and how do we feel about 3 in 30,0000 (if those are the correct numbers) not being "none" and/or being material/immaterial. Jump ball, anyone?
My opinion on the classified emails is that while the statements of Clinton and Comey appear to be inconsistent, it isn't actually so.
I have no trouble believing, after hearing Comey's testimony, that Hillary never knew those emails carried classified markings.
If the email heading didn't show any classification, and the only evidence of such was a little "C" in the sidebar next to the pertinent text, she could have missed the "C", or even never read far enough into the email to see it.
Therefore it would not have been a lie to state that no classified emails were on the server, in spite of subsequently learning that it was a false statement.

Whoever emailed such a document to Hillary in the first place may be in big trouble though.

One thing I haven't heard in any reports is how extensively the State Dept used their Wire system to transmit sensitive info versus regular email.
If it was shown that she generally used the Wire system for confidential documents, and only a very very small number got into the email system, that would tend to mitigate the circumstances.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20108
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

And we continue the list of Top Ten greatest U.S. Presidents (and, more importantly, their Bordeaux wine correlations) ever with #9:

Previous selection(s):

We don't have very good choices for this year's presidential election but in the end we are going to miss Barry.
He has been solid, I'll give him an A-/B+, he was deceptively strong, like the Lynch Bages of the second half of the 1980s.
He ranks certainly in the top ten presidencies, at least to this historian, flirting even in my mind with the top five….

The Jim How Top ten Greatest Presidents, and their Bordeaux wine counterparts…..

The Top Ten Best is a lot tougher than the Bottom Ten, there have been more great presidents than there have been bad presidents, we've been pretty lucky in that regard. We'll start off with the top ten best, then move on to the top ten worst.

#10. Dwight Eisenhower. It was tough, there are about 5 or 6 others who could easily be included in the top 10, I'll mention them in honorable mention at the end. But if I have to pick, I have to include Ike in my top ten. He gets in, of course, at least as much if not more for his leadership in WWII, managing the competing personalities involved. As president he presided over post-war growth and prosperity, the interstate highway system, appointed Earl Warren, provided moderation at a time the country welcomed it, warned against the military-industrial complex. He was strong and solid, nothing fancy, but great backbone, like a great St. Estephe, a Cos d'estournel of the 1980s or even a Montrose of the 2000s. B+.


#9: Woodrow Wilson: Despite his faults, he ushered in a new era. In his 8 years there was a paradigm shift in world power, as the United States emerged at the top. He was celebrated mightily in Europe at the end of World War I, enhancing American power and strength (for better and worse). Despite its ultimate failures, the League of Nations set a template and created a mechanism for the solution of world problems that was quite revolutionary at the time and that set in motion for the next century a new way of thinking about global relations that had never existed before in the history of the world. The population and immigration influx grew enormously during his administration. His racism will knock him down from a higher standing but, hey, there will be others higher on this list who owned hundreds of slaves. Presiding over victory in World War I tends to score high with most historians. He was an incredibly lusty, pornographic lover, writing literally thousands of unapologetically pornographic letters to his two wives. He suffered a serious stroke and the fruit did not survive the tannins. He was an intellectual, stern, with a surprising sultriness… like the 2002 left bank Bordeaux vintage. B+.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Tom In DC »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:Charlie Manson was a tad early with his call for Helter Skelter but he's looking prophetic now.
We need a "Like" button.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Tom In DC »

I agree with the Ike nomination - the interstate highway system is the last successful big government program.

Wilson was in the right place at the right time - Euralasia had beaten itself to the brink of death so it was easy to tip the scale. We stayed the top dog even through the depression by not having to repair the damages of war. The biggest reason the Marshall program (rebuilding the defeated foes) gets so much credit is because Europe spent the years between the wars trying not to starve to death.

I'd be terrified of the impact should another war be fought in North America.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Chris, thanks for posting that. Pretty much the reasoning behind my comments on the validity of the public evidence.

As to assessing past Presidents during my lifetime (doing a historical top 10 like Jim would take some more time), I would have put George W Bush all alone in the really shitty camp. Based on both ends and means. While I agree with Jacques and Patrick that there's good and bad in every administration, I have a tough time finding any redeeming value in W's Presidency.

Then along came Trump. He may warrant another category below shitty.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4864
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Looking forward to your 8-1 nominations BD
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20108
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

It's been fun to dig up research on the subject.
I studied the American Presidency in college.
We've been pretty fortunate over the last two centuries, we've had a number of excellent to outstanding presidents. Any one of about 15-16 could have made it into the top ten. We've had some real stinkers too, but the list of great presidents is larger. I already have my "worst ten" list put together.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: President Trump

Post by Blanquito »

I expect opinions will differ (as much for the messenger as the message), but did you guys see that Krugman article in 2014 calling Obama "one of the most consequential and... successful presidents in American history"?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... a-20141008

Not sure I agree overall, though it's an interesting thesis over recent history from, say, 1970-now. I wonder if Obama is still hated on the Right like he was, or has the end game taken the edge off? Apparently, a plurality of Republicans still think he's a Muslim, FWIW.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by DavidG »

Krugman defends Obama's record on healthcare, financial reform, the economy, the environment, national security and social change. I'll give Obama a good rating, but I don't share Krugman's degree of enthusiasm. Keep in mind a lot has happened in the 2 years since that article was written. And Presidents often get credit or blame out of proportion to their actual influence.

Healthcare I know something about. It's an area where Obama has had a huge impact. The ACA has made coverage available to millions that didn't have it, but the first "A" in the ACA, which stands for affordable, is a lie for many of the newly insured. These are high-deductible plans. With out of pocket costs many thousands of dollars above and beyond the premiums, a doctor's visit and prescription medications are just as unobtainable as they were before the ACA. While millions do have access to care that they didn't have before, in practice it's not nearly as many millions as suggested by the number enrolled. And the follow-on legislation, HITECH and MACRA, have made the practice of medicine a nightmare for the private practitioner. These bills are driving consolidation in the marketplace, with many practices being absorbed by large healthcare conglomerates. I'll still give Obama a thumbs up on healthcare for the increased coverage, but the quality of care is at risk because of the increased resources physicians must devote to jumping through government hoops.

Financial reform. Are we better off? Or has the air in the balloon just been squeezed to another location? I may be naive but I'm still pissed that no one went to jail for the financial crisis. We're past the mortgage crisis but credit card and student loan debt are at all-time highs. Is there a recurrent theme here of lending to people who have no clue as to their obligations and who may be unable to repay the loans? I can't give him a thumbs up here.

The economy... I'm far from an expert here either, but Obama inherited a disaster. Unemployment is better but there's also been wage stagnation and increasing wealth disparity. ARRA sounded good but where did all that money go? Couldn't it have been better spent on fixing a few bridges? After how many years of zero/almost zero interest rates, are we left with no ammunition for the next crisis? OTOH, I've got no complaints about my investment and retirement account performance. From my perspective, a thumbs up for a slow but steady recovery. Probably a thumbs down from the majority of people on the short end of the income disparity stick.

The environment. Obama's made some limited progress. I'll give him credit for doing what he can in the face of Congressional opposition.

National security. Like Krugman, I'm disappointed that the deceptions that led us into the Iraq war and torture in the name of national security were just swept under the rug and forgotten, but I suspect that was unavoidable realpolitik. Are we safer than we were 8 years ago? By what definition? We seem to be more prone to killing ourselves than at risk from international actors. Which brings us to...

Social change. Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for... what exactly? Not being George W. Bush? Being the first black man elected US President? Historic, yes. But he hadn't actually done anything yet. Embarrassing. Since then, we've seen great progress on gay rights despite his waffling on the issue. But much of that progress has happened at the state level, so I find it hard to give him credit. Gun violence? Race relations? Religious tolerance? Sure doesn't seem like we've made any progress there. Some of this is secondary to the economy. One might have hoped for more from the bloody pulpit. A slight thumbs down for not living up to the hype.

Like all Presidents, a mix of good and bad. More good than bad, but far from great.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20108
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by JimHow »

Obama will be coming in next, at #8 for me.
I'm more enthusiastic about him than you Dave, more so because he has been sanity in the face of a politics and media gone crazy. There have been no scandals, he is faithful to his beautiful family. No character issues. I personally think his last two years have been his strongest. It's like he finally found his voice. And I think it's no coincidence that his poll numbers are up accordingly. He finally became the president we were expecting at the beginning. He's modest, self-deprecating, level headed. With the drama coming on the horizon, he will be missed.

I had some $23,000 of medical services performed this winter, and the total cost to me has been $750. I'm on 6 different medications that cost many thousands of dollars. After I paid my $500 prescription deductible early in the year, I haven't had to pay a dime for my meds since.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: President Trump

Post by Tom In DC »

That's a rousing endorsement for health insurance, Jim. Are you suggesting that you didn't have health insurance before the ACA? Did your premiums go down with ACA?

Affordability has a lot to do with how many insurers provide coverage in any given area. There are many places with only one company writing policies and these are not affordable.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 9 guests