The President of the US has been impeached

[8-bit guerilla | 82]

On 12/19/2019 at 8:53 AM, CodysGameRoom said:

This is probably the question I am most intrigued by. Will the older generation see that he's been impeached and stop supporting him? Or will his younger supporters be outraged and turn out in even greater numbers? I'm REALLY curious to see how this all goes down.

Literally I was just at a red light with a fella holding a sign that said “Honk ForTrump” and every 2-3rd car beeped. Passing through Jacksonville FL anyway...

[m308gunner | 352]

3 hours ago, CodysGameRoom said:

You deny that the post is an attempt to justify the quote? Because that's exactly what it is. You are trying to justify why it's ok that he said that. There is no justification that can make him saying that ok. There is no context that can make it ok. It's awful. It's not playing the outrage card if what you said is outrageous. 

And yes, when considering someone's opinions, I'll take into account what I know about the person. And if they tend to make ridiculous statements, it hurts the credibility of everything they say.

  I'm going to be generous and say that you seem to be misinterpreting what I'm saying (though there's quite a bit of lip biting going on right now). I am not making a value judgement on what behavior Trump says he engaged in in that Access Hollywood tape.  My original posting of Trump's quote was to help give full context of what he said. And context matters. In the context of Trump the celebrity stating he can "do what he wants" to what he describes as willing participants ("And when you're a star they let you do it. You can do anything."), it brings into focus that the situation many would like to describe as naked sexual predatory behavior is not reflected in the situation described (albeit in Trumps words). 

  Now let me state again as simply as possible. I am not condoning the behavior. I am referencing the Trump quote to give a fuller context to what seems to be an interaction of a sexual nature between two (apparently) willing parties, that I have only ever seen as a partial quote differently characterized.

  As to the credibility of statements a person makes, I challenge you to find a single solitary person who has ever said anything of worth AND has never said anything that would give you pause. To characterize a whole body of work off one statement is bafflingly naive. I'd almost say it's intentional, but again I'm trying to leave room for misinterpretation coloring the waters.

[m308gunner | 352]

3 hours ago, Tulpa said:

You don't know that that's what those women were like. Not every woman (or person in an inferior position) feels that they can speak out against someone in authority, such as a celebrity or "star" in Trump's words.

Many assault and rape victims don't immediately fight back, leading to comments like "well, she must have wanted it." Which is an absolutely disgusting and morally repugnant stance called victim blaming. Please don't do that.

 And you don't know either. None of us do, until they come forward, which given the current shark tank like attitude towards Trump in the media I would assume it's now or never.

  Completely understand, know of, and agree that the power disparity can impact a victim's willingness to come forward.

... Are you actually accusing me of victim blaming or characterizing anything I said as such?!? Because that would be f#*&^% low man.

[Tulpa | 3,494]

17 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

 None of us do, until they come forward, which given the current shark tank like attitude towards Trump in the media I would assume it's now or never.

No, we can't say that they will ever come forward, no matter what happens to Trump. Some never do.

 

 

17 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

... Are you actually accusing me of victim blaming or characterizing anything I said as such?!? Because that would be f#*&^% low man.

It's very close to the line. That's why I said, please don't do that.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by Tulpa

[m308gunner | 352]

3 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

I would be interested to see your take on Trump's judgment as president related to the fairly significant pool of people around him that have (1) been arrested and gone to jail (2) are otherwise under investigation for campaign related crimes.

Oh wait... "those were just process crimes, and they were tricked by the FBI during an investigation that never should have happened", right?

EDIT: also as a separate point (that I don't want to wade back through to find the relevant quote) -- I don't think anyone should be remotely impressed that he has had face-to-face meetings with dictators.  Any US president at pretty much any time could get a meeting like that.  The reason they haven't in the past is because it is perceived as legitimizing the dictators, where the dictator doesn't need anything to come from the meeting except a photo op to use as propaganda.

Maybe choosing to take those meetings ultimately turns out to be helpful, maybe it doesn't.

But there was no "master negotiator" abilities in play to get the meetings -- it was almost certainly as simple as just asking for them.

  Given the number of people he has fired unceremoniously and the general turn around of his staff I'm not sure how significant an impact those around him actually have on his judgement. 

  Do you deny that a special prosecutor has not or will not keep digging until they find something wrong, given the number of unrelated crimes people were prosecuted for during the Mueller Investigation? Wasn't Manafort convicted of of finance related crimes that dated from years before the campaign (and apparently right up to it)? Kilimnik looks reeeeaaally close to a process crime, though I'm surprised they didn't nail him for more serious crimes... Roger Stone is pretty much an open and shut case. Didn't the FISA court just reprimand Comey on something?...

  But prosecuting people for identity theft (Pinedo) and failing to register as a foreign lobyist (Patten) sounds just like a special prosecutor digging until they hit something.

  Fair point about the face-to-face, though I'd fall more in line with Tulsi Gabbard about engaging with foreign dictators. Not sure I agree with your characterization that no "master negotiating" skills were involved, given that Trump went from calling Kim "rocket man" to having some face time. Certainly not a "master"... maybe journeyman?

[m308gunner | 352]

14 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

No, we can't say that they will ever come forward, no matter what happens to Trump. Some never do.

 

 

It's very close to the line. That's why I said, please don't do that.

 

 

Ok. So you're subjectively defining where the line is and accusing me of something monstrous. We're done.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

24 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Given the number of people he has fired unceremoniously and the general turn around of his staff I'm not sure how significant an impact those around him actually have on his judgement. 

  Do you deny that a special prosecutor has not or will not keep digging until they find something wrong, given the number of unrelated crimes people were prosecuted for during the Mueller Investigation? Wasn't Manafort convicted of of finance related crimes that dated from years before the campaign (and apparently right up to it)? Kilimnik looks reeeeaaally close to a process crime, though I'm surprised they didn't nail him for more serious crimes... Roger Stone is pretty much an open and shut case. Didn't the FISA court just reprimand Comey on something?...

  But prosecuting people for identity theft (Pinedo) and failing to register as a foreign lobyist (Patten) sounds just like a special prosecutor digging until they hit something.

  Fair point about the face-to-face, though I'd fall more in line with Tulsi Gabbard about engaging with foreign dictators. Not sure I agree with your characterization that no "master negotiating" skills were involved, given that Trump went from calling Kim "rocket man" to having some face time. Certainly not a "master"... maybe journeyman?

To each his own, I suppose... but I think the company he keeps seems to speak for itself with respect to the quality of his judgment and character being reflected in the people he surrounds himself with.  A person competent for the position wouldn't have anywhere near the churn-rate (and a WAY lower arrest/conviction rate...) of advisers and close staff.

And I would have expected the special prosecutor to keep digging as long as the digging was turning up misconduct, which it was.

 

You're welcome to disagree with my read of Trump's negotiating skills, regarding dictators, I suppose, but I think you are seriously overestimating the level of effort required to get an audience with despots that simply desperate for recognition and attention.  The number one thing they want is to be legitimized on the world stage.

And I think you may be failing to realize that THEY frame the narrative for their local media.

North Korean's don't have outside media access and very likely limited or no English.  So they only get NK media in the local language.

They don't know what Trump did, or didn't say to their leader.  All they know is that Trump showed up, smiled, shook hands, and made their leader look like a real player on the world stage (from their perspective).

Trump gave Kim exactly what he wanted at the time, with absolute no meaningful concessions in return.  That isn't a negotiation. 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2019 by arch_8ngel

[m308gunner | 352]

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

To each his own, I suppose... but I think the company he keeps seems to speak for itself with respect to the quality of his character being reflected in the people he surrounds himself with.

And I would have expected the special prosecutor to keep digging as long as the digging was turning up misconduct, which it was.

 

You're welcome to disagree with my read of Trump's negotiating skills, regarding dictators, I suppose, but I think you are seriously overestimating the level of effort required to get an audience with despots that simply desperate for recognition and attention.  The number one thing they want is to be legitimized on the world stage.

And I think you may be failing to realize that THEY frame the narrative for their local media.

North Korean's don't have outside media access and very likely limited or no English.  So they only get NK media in the local language.

They don't know what Trump did, or didn't say to their leader.  All they know is that Trump showed up, smiled, shook hands, and made their leader look like a real player on the world stage (from their perspective).

Trump gave Kim exactly what he wanted at the time, with absolute no meaningful concessions in return.  That isn't a negotiation. 

 

  Mmm, I can't 100% agree that the company one keeps in a professional/political environment is an accurate reflection of one's own character. Horrible people are often wicked competent in any given field. Besides, what does the company we keep on this site say about us

  One would hope that a special prosecutor would dig up dirt related to the subject at hand, not tangentially related offenses, but we all know the score.

  I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your analysis, honestly. I'm of the personal opinion that it's a chip to be cashed in later, but more along the lines of a persuasion tactic Trump will use during his reelection. I mean, if nothing else, it is historically noteworthy - "remember that time the President of the US met with the Dictator of North Korea?". 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

4 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Mmm, I can't 100% agree that the company one keeps in a professional/political environment is an accurate reflection of one's own character. Horrible people are often wicked competent in any given field. Besides, what does the company we keep on this site say about us

  One would hope that a special prosecutor would dig up dirt related to the subject at hand, not tangentially related offenses, but we all know the score.

  I don't necessarily disagree with the rest of your analysis, honestly. I'm of the personal opinion that it's a chip to be cashed in later, but more along the lines of a persuasion tactic Trump will use during his reelection. I mean, if nothing else, it is historically noteworthy - "remember that time the President of the US met with the Dictator of North Korea?". 

If the people Trump picked were "wicked competent in any given field" (or hopefully the field they were chosen for) then the churn rate wouldn't have been nearly as high...

 

Regarding the special prosecutor -- would you expect them to IGNORE other potential crimes they uncover in the course of their investigation?   

 

"Remember that time the President of the US was used as a pawn by the dictator of North Korea?"

"Remember that time the President of the US said he trusted a Russian dictator's word more than his own country's intelligence services?"

 

[m308gunner | 352]

34 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

If the people Trump picked were "wicked competent in any given field" (or hopefully the field they were chosen for) then the churn rate wouldn't have been nearly as high...

Regarding the special prosecutor -- would you expect them to IGNORE other potential crimes they uncover in the course of their investigation?   

"Remember that time the President of the US was used as a pawn by the dictator of North Korea?"

"Remember that time the President of the US said he trusted a Russian dictator's word more than his own country's intelligence services?"

 

  Well we know from a few sources that Trump apparently loves chaos, stemming from his professional career, so I think it would be fair to say that competency (on the part of his subordinates) and satisfaction (Trump's) aren't synonymous.

  I suppose I wouldn't expect the special prosecutor to ignore crimes unrelated to the initial objective of the investigation, but is sure doesn't help from an optics angle. 2+ years and how much money to come up with some of those charges? I'm not arguing against the veracity of said convictions, just looking at it from a persuasion standpoint (which is how Trump will probably come at it from).

  Heh, well the North Korean line is subjective. Funny, but subjective. Especially if things turn out favorably for him on that front.

  I think the last line should be interpreted in the context of a time when Trump was apparently under the assumption that the "deep state" was after him, right or wrong. And given the FISA court's... I'm not sure what you'd call it... admonition of Comey he might have some reason to believe that.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

11 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

 .

  I think the last line should be interpreted in the context of a time when Trump was apparently under the assumption that the "deep state" was after him, right or wrong. 

Such a public demonstration of throwing your own country under the bus was a complete and utter failure of leadership on his part and an immense national humiliation.

Trump doesn't genuinely believe in any deep state and neither do the talking heads like Limbaugh.  They just know it sells well to their audience and gives them a distraction tactic.

[m308gunner | 352]

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Such a public demonstration of throwing your own country under the bus was a complete and utter failure of leadership on his part and an immense national humiliation.

Trump doesn't genuinely believe in any deep state and neither do the talking heads like Limbaugh.  They just know it sells well to their audience and gives them a distraction tactic.

  Well, to be fair and in context, he was throwing the intelligence apparatus under the bus, which still doesn't look great. Not sure how an individual not directly related to said organizations would feel anything though.

  I can't speak to Trump's genuine beliefs on the issue (as no one who isn't a mind reader can), but I saw a few snippets from a Carter Page interview that could lend a bit of credence to the idea. I think it could be safe to assume that both things are true at the same time; Trump believes in the deep state (to some degree), and he's using it as a persuasion tactic with his base (and probably some moderates).

 

[MrWunderful | 2,927]

24 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Well, to be fair and in context, he was throwing the intelligence apparatus under the bus, which still doesn't look great. Not sure how an individual not directly related to said organizations would feel anything though.

  I can't speak to Trump's genuine beliefs on the issue (as no one who isn't a mind reader can), but I saw a few snippets from a Carter Page interview that could lend a bit of credence to the idea. I think it could be safe to assume that both things are true at the same time; Trump believes in the deep state (to some degree), and he's using it as a persuasion tactic with his base (and probably some moderates).

 

Getting your supporters to not trust anything except for what he says is straight out of the dictators handbook. Especially sowing distrust in the government, over many things that are demonstrably false. 
 

m308gunner, I have respect for you for having well thought out answers when it comes to Trump. Any Trump supporters I have ever talked to just end up yelling fake news and snowflake without trying to answer any actual problems.
 

I disagree with a lot of the things you gloss over and we have different ideas  of moral leadership from the president (not to mention some of the Fox news talking points you sprinkle in  ) but appreciate you calmly arguing your side. 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

20 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Well, to be fair and in context, he was throwing the intelligence apparatus under the bus, which still doesn't look great. Not sure how an individual not directly related to said organizations would feel anything though.

  I can't speak to Trump's genuine beliefs on the issue (as no one who isn't a mind reader can), but I saw a few snippets from a Carter Page interview that could lend a bit of credence to the idea. I think it could be safe to assume that both things are true at the same time; Trump believes in the deep state (to some degree), and he's using it as a persuasion tactic with his base (and probably some moderates).

 

You don't find it to be a national embarrassment when the president says he believes a dictator over his own country's intelligence services?  (ALL of which were in contradiction with said dictator with similar conclusions/analysis)

His behavior during that entire press conference was pathetic.

 

I think if Trump actually believes in a deep state that is out to get them, then he is even less fit for the job than he already is.  As low of an opinion as I have about the guy, I think he is at least smarter than genuinely believing in conspiracy theories, and instead is just manipulating his base who seem to blindly trust him.

[Link | 2,710]

4 hours ago, m308gunner said:

And you don't know either. None of us do, until they come forward, which given the current shark tank like attitude towards Trump in the media I would assume it's now or never.

uh.................

Ivana Trump, Summer Zervos, E. Jean Carroll, Temple Taggert McDowell, Lisa Boyne, Jill Harth, Natasha Stoynoff, Cathy Heller, Alva Johnson, Jessica Leeds, Kristin Anderson, the list goes on and on.

[m308gunner | 352]

1 hour ago, MrWunderful said:

Getting your supporters to not trust anything except for what he says is straight out of the dictators handbook. Especially sowing distrust in the government, over many things that are demonstrably false. 
 

m308gunner, I have respect for you for having well thought out answers when it comes to Trump. Any Trump supporters I have ever talked to just end up yelling fake news and snowflake without trying to answer any actual problems.
 

I disagree with a lot of the things you gloss over and we have different ideas  of moral leadership from the president (not to mention some of the Fox news talking points you sprinkle in  ) but appreciate you calmly arguing your side. 

 Well thank you sir... I think :P. But I am not a Trump supporter, at least not in the way most would think of the term. I'm too conflicted to fully hang my hat on that hook. I mostly just rent it from time to time.

  I think many in this thread are selling Trump supporters short if they believe he has that level of influence over them though. In fact and in contrast to your own observed experiences, all the Trump supporters I know (most of whom I work with and can out think and talk me any day of the week, and there are A LOT) all seem to know that he is full of hot air most of the time and not to be believed from a factual point of view. I'm sure there are a fair number like the kind you've encountered, but I honestly haven't seen many of that variety. 

  If Trump really wanted to act like a dictator this would be bush league. He tweets (and retweets) too many people and references a few different media outlets (mostly Fox News) to be considered, in my estimation, to be trying to gain a monopoly on public his supporter's trust. And can any of us REALLY say we trust our government, given the number of scandals, revelations, waste and reported blunders over the past... our own lifetimes? Heck, just limit it to the past three administrations. You really put much stock in THAT monstrosity? I know public memory is pretty short, but I would hope it's not THAT short.

 Would it surprise you if I said I haven't watched Fox News in the past 5 years (and that's being conservative)? So if I'm not getting my points from Fox would that make my points a bit more listenable?

  And just for anyone who doesn't want to read through this entire thread for my opinion on the moral leadership of the president, see my summary of the government a few lines above. The president is a glorified paper pusher (or should be) and should no more guide one's moral choices than your accountant or selectman. 

 Oh, lastly, if I am glossing over anything, and you have the time/inclination to summarize them, I would welcome the chance to sharpen my points.

 

[m308gunner | 352]

1 hour ago, arch_8ngel said:

You don't find it to be a national embarrassment when the president says he believes a dictator over his own country's intelligence services?  (ALL of which were in contradiction with said dictator with similar conclusions/analysis)

His behavior during that entire press conference was pathetic.

 

I think if Trump actually believes in a deep state that is out to get them, then he is even less fit for the job than he already is.  As low of an opinion as I have about the guy, I think he is at least smarter than genuinely believing in conspiracy theories, and instead is just manipulating his base who seem to blindly trust him.

  Embarrassing? Not really, given Trump's penchant for being outrageous. We didn't hire a politician, we hired a showman and a bully. After Scott Adams predicted that Trump would win, he also predicted that Trump would change the very nature of politics in this country, and then predicted that Trump would change how we think about impeachment. I have a hard time arguing with the man. But that's a WHOLE other thread...

  See my description of Trump Supporters in my response to MrWunderful.

[m308gunner | 352]

15 minutes ago, Link said:

uh.................

Ivana Trump, Summer Zervos, E. Jean Carroll, Temple Taggert McDowell, Lisa Boyne, Jill Harth, Natasha Stoynoff, Cathy Heller, Alva Johnson, Jessica Leeds, Kristin Anderson, the list goes on and on.

 Thank you for the list. Are you assuming my previous contention that certain women exist is nullified by this list?

  *enters troll mode* Out of curiosity, could you whip up a list of Bill Clinton's accusers? I'd like to compare sizes. *exits troll mode* 

 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

27 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  Embarrassing? Not really, given Trump's penchant for being outrageous. We didn't hire a politician, we hired a showman and a bully. After Scott Adams predicted that Trump would win, he also predicted that Trump would change the very nature of politics in this country, and then predicted that Trump would change how we think about impeachment. I have a hard time arguing with the man. But that's a WHOLE other thread...

  See my description of Trump Supporters in my response to MrWunderful.

If you don't think Trump (and the likes of Limbaugh) don't have influence over their supporters you should catch the call ins to right wing radio shows or read online comment sections....

There are legions of people that eat up whatever garbage these guys spew and repeat it verbatim.  

If they didn't have that kind of influence the wording would at least change a little bit to reflect more nuanced opinions.  But catch Rush on any given day and then watch Trump supporters online parrot the guy, word for word.

 

 

In terms of "we hired" him to shake things up, that is a pretty bad misrepresentation of reality.  

Some portion of a minority of voters definitely hired him to be outrageous.

A much larger portion of a minority hired him out of spite for Hillary, and just hoped he would behave himself.

But most of us wished we had better options, and the majority didn't vote for him at all.

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by arch_8ngel

[m308gunner | 352]

2 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

If you don't think Trump (and the likes of Limbaugh) don't have influence over their supporters you should catch the call ins to right wing radio shows or read online comment sections....

There are legions of people that eat up whatever garbage these guys spew and repeat it verbatim.  

If they didn't have that kind of influence the wording would at least change a little bit to reflect more nuanced opinions.  But catch Rush on any given day and then watch Trump supporters online parrot the guy, word for word.

 

 

In terms of "we hired", that is a pretty bad misrepresentation of reality.  A fairly small subset of the country picked this guy in their primaries and he was set up against an abysmal candidate in the general election, leading more people to hold their nose and elect him.  But even then, by no stretch of the imagination did he ever have popular support.  So "we" didn't hire him. A strongly positioned minority hired him in the face of the worst second option that has ever graced a general election.

Some portion of that minority definitely hired him to be outrageous.

A much larger portion hired him out of spite for Hillary, and just hoped he would behave himself.

But most of us wished we had better options and didn't vote for him.

 

All I can say is I work for and with viciously smart people who are Trump supporters who hear opinions much like the ones I've seen in this thread and say "Boy they must really want to see a second term for Trump". 

  I thought I was being general enough with the "we hired" that you wouldn't feel the need to be so specific, but yes, what you said.

  And I LOLed at the bolded part.

[Link | 2,710]

17 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

Thank you for the list. Are you assuming my previous contention that certain women exist is nullified by this list?

What? You said if women don’t like his advances, surely they would have come forward by now, in the sharks-in-the-water environment, and I’m telling you they have indeed come forward. Many of them. 

20 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

  *enters troll mode* Out of curiosity, could you whip up a list of Bill Clinton's accusers? I'd like to compare sizes. *exits troll mode* 

1. I don’t give a shit about Clinton. I don’t like either one of them. Although I will say, Billy-boy did truly preside over a good economy, unlike The Donald whose assertions to that end are flat-out false. Here are some figures you can look at explaining this: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune-sunday/20191222/281822875703281

2. Whatabout-ism is bullshit. Noting one person is guilty of same doesn’t mitigate the issues with the former. As long as went there, though, his count is 4. I think the donald is up to 26. Yes, compare sizes. He has the best numbers! 

3. You can stop shifting the goalposts any time now.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

7 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

All I can say is I work for and with viciously smart people who are Trump supporters who hear opinions much like the ones I've seen in this thread and say "Boy they must really want to see a second term for Trump". 

  I thought I was being general enough with the "we hired" that you wouldn't feel the need to be so specific, but yes, what you said.

  And I LOLed at the bolded part.

I am certainly not painting all Trump supporters with the brush of parroting the talking points, but there is undeniably a sizeable portion of his base that fall into that.

But do you honestly believe that your "viciously smart" coworkers are representative of the average Trump supporter?

 

That said, I agree that it is challenging to offer meaningful criticism of the guy that doesn't just seem to galvanize his base, that for whatever reason believe the man can do no wrong.

It is a pretty disturbing cult of personality that is in play, when you get down to it.

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

33 minutes ago, m308gunner said:

 

  *enters troll mode* Out of curiosity, could you whip up a list of Bill Clinton's accusers? I'd like to compare sizes. *exits troll mode* 

 

Everytime I see a bullshit whataboutism pop up, I can't help but chuckle at the irony of knowing that the same people that apologize for Trump's behavior would have been apoplectic of Obama ever did anything remotely similar.

They made a whole thing out of the guy wearing a tan suit or using Dijon mustard.  Could you imagine what they would have done if he'd paid $100k to a pornstar as a cover-up during an election?

[m308gunner | 352]

4 minutes ago, Link said:

What? You said if women don’t like his advances, surely they would have come forward by now, in the sharks-in-the-water environment, and I’m telling you they have indeed come forward. Many of them. 

1. I don’t give a shit about Clinton. I don’t like either one of them. Although I will say, Billy-boy did truly preside over a good economy, unlike The Donald whose assertions to that end are flat-out false. Here are some figures you can look at explaining this: https://www.pressreader.com/usa/chicago-tribune-sunday/20191222/281822875703281

2. Whatabout-ism is bullshit. Noting one person is guilty of same doesn’t mitigate the issues with the former. As long as went there, though, his count is 4. I think the donald is up to 26. Yes, compare sizes. He has the best numbers! 

3. You can stop shifting the goalposts any time now.

 I never said they wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't. I'm not sure why you think I did. It seems like we're constantly misunderstanding each other. Not mad, just puzzled.

  I think you missed my *engage troll* notification at the beginning and end of that line. It was meant as tongue in cheek. 

  I'm sure I could dig up an article or two as well, but it seems like different people measure a good economy different ways. Keep in mind that Trump doesn't deal so much with facts as persuasion, and his persuasion game is strong economically. 

  As for whataboutism, I agree, it is bullshit. Now refer back to the "troll" notification.

  You can stop assuming facts not in evidence now.

[m308gunner | 352]

6 minutes ago, arch_8ngel said:

Everytime I see a bullshit whataboutism pop up, I can't help but chuckle at the irony of knowing that the same people that apologize for Trump's behavior would have been apoplectic of Obama ever did anything remotely similar.

They made a whole thing out of the guy wearing a tan suit or using Dijon mustard.  Could you imagine what they would have done if he'd paid $100k to a pornstar as a cover-up during an election?

As I told Link, please refer to the *enters troll* notification. Maybe that means something different than I assumed it does?...