Trump Administration Accomplishments In Just 24 Months - SIMPLY AMAZING.

a reply to: zandra

Lol, damned if we do, damned if we don't. Enjoy your misery. Strengthen your country.

I have a bridge for sale if anyone is interested. It's a great bridge.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Alien Abduct
Eisenhower served as Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army from 1945–48. Taylor was a general. So was Grant. If you think these positions aren't heavily involved in the politics of the United States government then you don't know squat about politics.

They still aren't elected politicians. You're also missing that the Original Poster edited his comments after my first two.

You could just turn the logic around on itself. By their way of thinking Trump had just as much government experience as a General. He's testified before congress multiple times, he's had plenty of meetings with government officials, dinners with presidents, held fundraisers, greased some pockets, you know generally been involved in politics since the 80's.

a reply to: Extorris

I’m quite familiar with history. Which is why I understand that the bailout wasn’t a one time thing. Paulsons bailout was for 600 billion. The expansion under Obama was conservatively put at 9 trillion. Obama was advised by the head of the fdic to nationalize the criminal banks, Citigroup specifically as they were the worst offender by far. Instead Obama went before the banks and actually said “I’m the only one standing between you and the mob with pitchforks. And I’m going to protect you because you are my donors. “

a reply to: Dfairlite
My family and I were just lucky that we are born in a rich country. Silly luck, no more than that. I have a good life...no shortage of money ... no offence ...

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Extorris

I’m quite familiar with history. Which is why I understand that the bailout wasn’t a one time thing. Paulsons bailout was for 600 billion. The expansion under Obama was conservatively put at 9 trillion.

Nope. The bill was signed in 2008 and the payments were legislated as law by the time Pres. Obama took office.

Over the next six months, TARP was dwarfed by other guarantees and lending limits; analysis by Bloomberg found the Federal Reserve had, by March 2009, committed $7.77 trillion to rescuing the financial system, more than half the value of everything produced in the U.S. that year.

Pres Obama did bail out the Auto Industry for 80 Billion though.

This belongs in the mud pit.

a reply to: carewemust

To summarise: economically, Trump's first two years were the best two years since Clinton.

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Extorris

I’m quite familiar with history. Which is why I understand that the bailout wasn’t a one time thing. Paulsons bailout was for 600 billion. The expansion under Obama was conservatively put at 9 trillion. Obama was advised by the head of the fdic to nationalize the criminal banks, Citigroup specifically as they were the worst offender by far. Instead Obama went before the banks and actually said “I’m the only one standing between you and the mob with pitchforks. And I’m going to protect you because you are my donors. “

Looking at the bubbles in the economy, there's a fair chance that the sh*t will hit the fan again in the next year or two. What is Trump more likely to do: protect himself and his buddies and screw the workers or take the socialist path and nationalize the banks?

a reply to: Extorris

Obama promised to write down the loans and prosecute the banks. It’s what he got elected upon. This would have pushed the loans to reasonable amounts, kept the workers from homelessness, and cost the banks profit. He did the opposite, expanding the bailout, enacting quantitative easing which protected the banks and the stock market. Lied about investigations and prosecution of financiers and banks.

a reply to: Whodathunkdatcheese
What do you think he’ll do? Easy to predict. But nationalizing the banks wouldn’t be socialism, it would be state capitalism.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: highvein
Your being disingenuous.

No, the people claiming that our soldiers who became President without being previously elected officials somehow makes them political are being disingenuous. Even the Original Poster realized the error of his wicked ways and changed his wording.

High Ranking Military personnel are involved in politics. That is why there are rules for it. To suggest that High Ranking Military personnel have nothing to do with politics is disingenuous. They engage many politicians about matters of security.

Trump has had an amazing 2 years of achievements, despite an all out attempt to block everything he wants to do.
He's proven to be one of the most successful Presidents the US has ever had. Certainly a big step up on every president since Bill Clinton. I actually think Clinton was a great President too, despite the fact i can't stand him or his wife.

a reply to: UKTruth
Delusional. No single achievement that has helped the people of the us. Indeed, his primary achievements are deconstructing the very things that help the majority of the population, and giving a ton of money to the wealthy who don’t need it. I am happy with the tariffs and sanctions though. They are horrible for the Americans, but they are finally forcing Russia to diversify which is the best thing that could happen for them, they are pushing the rest of the world off the US dollar, which is great for the rest of the world, and they are destroying the power of sanctions as everyone is moving towards ignoring them more and more. He is a colossal implosion of us influence and the petro dollar, and the dollar world reserve currency, and i love that about him.

a reply to: pexx421

Lower taxes doesn't help the people of the US?
hmmm.

a reply to: UKTruth
The “lower taxes” is a delusion like everything else. The small amount that we save in taxes is way less than what we are losing as they gut our social safety nets and privatize our resources, utilities, and infrastructure. Just like those people given a one time bonus at work where the corporations are saving billions, the idea that this is making a huge difference in people’s lives is a fallacy, and is dwarfed by the windfall going to the corporations. And where does this “tax break” come from? More national debt! You can’t just borrow money from tomorrow for bills you can’t afford today and call that profit. It’s increased debt, as we have less of a tax base now to pay the debt that our nation can’t keep up with, and like fools who inherit a small amount when a parent dies, they blow it on gratification and rejoice at their newfound “wealth” as personal debt continues skyrocketing to levels never seen before. But, by all means, good job trump, for lying to people to convince them life is getting better. It isn’t. Take off your blinders and actually look around, rather than swallowing fake stats that reflect some alternate universe.

originally posted by: FauxMulder
You could just turn the logic around on itself. By their way of thinking Trump had just as much government experience as a General. He's testified before congress multiple times, he's had plenty of meetings with government officials, dinners with presidents, held fundraisers, greased some pockets, you know generally been involved in politics since the 80's.

I thought about that but it might confuse them.

originally posted by: highvein
High Ranking Military personnel are involved in politics.

I meet with politicians regularly when I want to sell them our products therefore I'm in politics.

a reply to: chr0naut

Was that supposed to be funny?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: carewemust
Considering that Donald J. Trump is the first U.S. President to NOT have ANY prior government experience...

Taylor? Grant? Eisenhower?

Wrong. Taylor, Grant, and Eisenhower were all career military men. That more than qualifies as prior government experience. Actually, it makes them EXCEPTIONALLY well qualified for public office due to the very nature of high ranking military officers and the massive amount of politics involved at their level.