Why Do "Conservatives" Have a Worse Economic Record Than "Liberals"?

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (160 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image91
    My Esotericposted 5 months ago

    I was working on a different hub and in the process developed the following statistics about GDP growth throughout American history.  Since George Washington, whose economic philosophy somewhat resembled those of today's liberals, there have been:

    - 10 periods where administrations who favored the kind of economic theory which thinks a federal reserve (a surrogate for a liberal economic philosophy) is a good thing

    -  10 periods where a federal reserve was a dirty word (not counting Trump)

    -  1 long period where they were uncertain

    -  The period where George Washington and John Adams were president

    *   In the in-between period (1800 - 1828) GDP growth was 3.47%

    *   George Washington and John Adams managed to produce a 6.08% growth

    *   Averaging the growths for the 10 "liberal" periods, we get 4.17%

    *   Averaging the growths for the 10 "conservative" periods, we get 3.13%

    While those two rates look close, they are statistically speaking very far apart.

    WHY?

    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
      Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Trump base most everything on the economy, and people unbalance ally choose to over focus on it too.

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
      JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      It's a CRIME: Mr. Trump's Corporate Welfare Tax Cut Scheme enabled by his republican accomplices did exactly what every expert expected and predicted because the same wealth transfer scam to Wall Street was perpetrated in the past, it made his elite friends wealthier while workers get poorer, exploded our debt to the point where we need to borrow even more from our enemies like China, and is corroding President Obama's once great economy: It must be REPEALED ASAP:

      "Trump's Tax Cuts Didn't Benefit U.S. Workers, Made Rich Companies Richer, Analysis Finds"

      http://www.newsweek.com/republican-tax- … ses-879800

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Yep, exactly what every thinking person said before they passed the #GOPTaxScam.

        Has anybody noticed the DOW has declined 10% since January?  I'll bet that is because investors realized demand won't grow as a result of the #GOPTaxScam; only corporate pocketbooks from larger dividends, stock buy-backs, and simply pocketing what would have been taxes to pay for America's infrastructure or reduce the debt.  Only a few workers got those bonuses you heard about right after the Act passed.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Jake, that is nonsensical.

        For one, the national debt practically tripled under the Obama Administration and Trump had nothing to do with that.

        Second, its basic math.  America went from worst corporate tax rate 35% to middle-of-the-pack 21% which is better than Mexico for instance by 9%.

        What this means, is that for large corporations it makes much more sense to remain in America, or move back to America, to produce their goods here.  Of course there is a great deal more that goes into all of this, what infrastructure is available, how stable is the political situation of a nation, what are the costs of power, hourly wages, etc.

        Trump has strong armed companies into remaining here in America, and the tax change makes it viable for them to do so.  That in turn has them hiring more Americans, putting more people to work, allowing wages to rise as there are fewer people available to choose from for those jobs, all of this will lead to a stronger economy, here in America.  Countries like Mexico and China will suffer because of it, this is the way it works, all economies and all nations cannot grow equally, they are in competition for those jobs/companies.

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          You forgot to mention, Ken, that the entire debt is a result of President Obama being left with the worst economic mess since FDR became president and being forced to save America (and therefore the world) from an unprecedented disaster.  To listen to you castigate him for it tells me you wish America had crashed and burned.  Why is that so?

          You also fail to mention that 1) most corporations had an EFFECTIVE tax rate of around 22% and 2) corporations ARE NOT, with only a very few exceptions,  planning on taking the windfall and investing it in America.  They ARE NOT planning on growing jobs.  Instead, what most are doing are increasing dividends and buying back their own stocks with the sole purpose of increase stock prices and filling their own pockets.  Why aren't you writing about that?

          What companies, other than the first few, has strong-armed into staying.  Seems to me many are moving some of their production outside the US - and that was before these terrible tariffs are forcing them out.

          Fortunately Trumpland is going to suffer quite a bit before the mid-terms.

          You forget to mention as well that Obama's hiring numbers far outstrip what Trump has accomplished. Why?

          Mexico and China are forming or have formed multinational trade alliances which will more than make up from any harm they may receive from Trump tariffs.  You forget it isn't just Mexico and China who Trump is going to war with.  It is every country that has a trade surplus with the U.S.   Trump has started a trade war with the world and he can't win it.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image89
            Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            "You forgot to mention, Ken, that the entire debt is a result of President Obama being left with the worst economic mess since FDR became president and being forced to save America (and therefore the world) from an unprecedented disaster.  To listen to you castigate him for it tells me you wish America had crashed and burned.  Why is that so?"


            Lets try some honesty here, Obama didn't save anything, the Wall St. crooks came in, told Congress and Obama to bail out the banks (at taxpayer expense) or else the 'to big to fail' banks would bring down the entire global economy.


            Obama was not a wizened, veteran politician or economist, he was a rookie Senator with great oratory skills and charm.  He used up his political capital getting the ACA act passed, spent his first four years blaming Bush for the economy, but made no changes of substance that ever helped the economy go from stagnant to stellar.

            The economy is turning for the better merely on Trump's bluster and bravado with businesses at first, then the passing of the new tax laws, and now with his trade wars.

            America will WIN all those trade wars because we are in a situation where we can't lose.  China either denies American products into China, or it taxes them at 45%... we have a 375-500 billion dollar a year deficit with them, how is it that it can get any worse for American interests or jobs?

            It can't.

            You can go down the road with all these countries, Germany, Mexico, Canada, all the benefits in tariffs or taxation were in their favor, America was already losing to them, so its not possible for it to get worse unless those nations want to ruin their own economies trying to keep the playing field uneven.


            Going back to why companies will be more inclined to stay, or return to the U.S.   … the taxation was one, the tariffs will be another, and the fact that Trump threatened to hit any company leaving with a 25% tax/tariff is yet another... this nationalism will hurt countries like China and Germany, but American workers will benefit from it, the economy will benefit from it... only certain international corporations, and their profits, will be hurt.


            So long as it doesn't go too far, it will be a good thing for Americans.  Obviously an all out trade war where China is completely cut off could be devastating to the global economy, but I don't see that happening.

            1. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Tariffs are a poor economic strategy and only cause the consumer to pay more. Of course Democrats are only against it because Trump is for it.

            2. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Ken - When you say "Lets try some honesty here, Obama didn't save anything," you are simply and demonstrably wrong.  The big banks didn't ask for anything from the gov't because of the strings it was supposed to come with.  Bush created TARP, conservatives removed the strings he wanted, and Obama implemented it.  Those are the facts.  I doubt you can find any economists anymore, even ones opposed to it at first, that says the stimulus was absolutely necessary.  If fact many say the being  so skinny is one of the reasons the recovery was so slow.

              The economy is doing no better under Trump than it did under Obama, in fact Obama even had a couple of quarters that grew at 4%, something Trump hasn't come close to.  The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE. Why?

              Trump's farmer base are screaming bloody murder because Trump's tariffs are killing them (well, to be fair, it is the retaliation that is killing them.)

              How can America win a war against the WHOLE world? That is nonsensical. We have no friends left to help us; like everybody else in his life, Trump has chased them away.  On the other hand, all of the other countries have formed alliances without the US on which they CAN and will rely on for support.

              It would help if you took a few economic classes to learn that trade imbalances are neither bad nor good in normal circumstances.  Trump incorrectly and stupidly thinks they are only bad.  They aren't, not even close.

              I have a strong feeling this last jobs report has hit a high point and will slide from here.  We'll find out in 30 days.  Some think that this quarters earnings reports are going to reflect the first signs of his tariffs negative impact.  Personally, I don't think so, but next quarter certainly will.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                "The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE."

                How about looking up the Dow on the day of the election and post it.  Then post the last figure that the market produced. 

                With that done explain how the big increase is ALL GONE when the market today is so much higher than it was when he was elected.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                **" Bush created TARP, conservatives removed the strings he wanted, and Obama implemented it.  Those are the facts. "

                Obama was not a businessman. Had no experience in banking.  He was a young freshman Senator that became President, the only impact he had on that bailout and the 'salvation' of the economy was signing his name to the papers they put in front of him.

                **"The economy is doing no better under Trump than it did under Obama, in fact Obama even had a couple of quarters that grew at 4%, something Trump hasn't come close to. "

                Those 4% growth quarters they went and re-adjusted a couple months after they made headlines, the real/official number ended up being 2.8% after adjustments.

                Barack Obama was The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth. 

                **"The gains the stock market made on his so-called bluster are ALL GONE. Why?"

                I dabble in stocks a bit, I can assure you the gains since he came into office have not come close to returning back to where they were before he was elected.  Unfortunately, it is still over inflated, with no end in sight.

                **"How can America win a war against the WHOLE world? That is nonsensical. We have no friends left to help us; like everybody else in his life, Trump has chased them away. "

                Who did we chase away exactly?

                China?  They have been KILLING America's industry, we have no tariffs on their products, but they tariff and tax American products at 45%.  We have been losing the war with them for more than a quarter century, it can't get any worse than a 500 Billion dollar deficit.

                China NEEDS America far more than America needs China, its that simple.

                Same for Germany, Mexico, and Canada.  If they don't like the new rules Trump is putting in place, demanding a level playing field, it will be their economies that suffer, not ours.  And that will be proven out, come 2020 anyone that said otherwise will be looking foolish.


                **"It would help if you took a few economic classes to learn that trade imbalances are neither bad nor good in normal circumstances."

                I've taken one or two, but I'll try to enrich my base of knowledge so that one day I may attain you level of comprehension.

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Ken - since you are so clearly wrong with "Barack Obama was The Only President In History To Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth.  " why should anyone believe anything else you say.

                  Obama beat 3% in 8 different quarters. Of those he beat 4% three times and of those, he beat 5% once.  So far, Trump, who claims that he has created the best economy in history, squeaked above 3% twice.  Specifically, he has 1.2%; 3.1%; 3.2%; 2.9%; and 2%.  The 2nd quarter of 2018 looks to be approaching 3% again.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Your numbers prompted me to take a look too, My Esoteric.

                    I think I found the charts with the numbers you quoted, but the same site also had stats that supported Ken's point.

                    It appears the mistake is yours. As Ken said, ""... Never Have A Year Of 3% GDP Growth."*

                    Pres Obama's best year was 2.9% annual GDP in 2015. Ken spoke of annual numbers and you refuted with quarterly numbers???

                    *I didn't check out the "only president to never have..." part, I am only speaking to the Obama years part.

                    GA

      3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image95
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        In earthshine land it is a crime to get to keep more of your own money. What a mixed up head one must have to think that way.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image93
          Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Who's going to make up the trillion and a half dollars not going into the treasury as usual, you?

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            And if you are wondering which $1.5 trillion Randy is talking about, it is the increase in deficit spending your spend-happy GOP friends have created with the GOPTaxScam.  Don't bank on increased growth - the only people predicting that are the ones who created such a poor tax bill.

          2. GoldenRod LM profile image97
            GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            The top 50% of Americans pay 97.1% of taxes. (As of 2015). If the bottom 50% could kick in a little more, it would be huge. Of course that won't happen because conservatives don't want to be hated and liberals will claim people will starve if that happens. Such is the America we live in today.

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              You might want to qualify that to income taxes.  If you are talking about taxes in general, almost 100% of adult Americans pay them.

              For example, we all pay:

              * payroll taxes
              * sales taxes
              * property taxes
              * state taxes
              * excise taxes.

              So saying 50% of Americans don't pay taxes is simply being disingenuous and trying to create a false narrative.

            2. GoldenRod LM profile image97
              GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Oh, come on. I was talking about Federal Income taxes. This was in response to -Who's going to make up the trillion and a half dollars not going into the treasury as usual, you? There is no false narrative here. Everybody wants to point the finger at another guy to pay the taxes. We need to bring in more money or stop deficit financing. But then some folks think deficits are great.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                You know that, but why do you assume I do?  I take you at your word when you say taxes.

                Like Republicans with the #GOPTaxScam causing the largest deficits in a long, long time.

                Before income inequality started going haywire in the 1980s, a lot higher percentage of Americans paid federal income taxes.  But beginning in the 80s, the top 20% of income earners saw huge growth in income while the next 60% saw flat to moderate growth and the lower 20% saw flat to decreased income.  So why would one expect the stratification of who pays income taxes to remain the same?

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Of course Earthshine said no such thing, your just fabricating.

    3. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      You think George Washington's economic policy resembles today's liberals? LOL!

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Maybe God should threaten both parties with the Noah ark.

        Greed dieses is unstoppable. Maybe Global warming washout might stop them, cause people are too hypnotized.

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Well, you might have the global warming point right.  If Trump is successful, millions upon millions will die as a result.

          Hopefully, the hypnosis will end come Nov 6.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        To the degree that his administration chose to intervene in the economy, yes. 

        As I hinted at before, but will say outright here, one distinguishing feature between conservative economics and liberal economics is the liberals believe that some type of federal reserve is needed to moderate the economy when needed.  His administration started the First Bank of the United States.

        In any case, I would have hoped you noticed I didn't include it anyway in the liberal group of 10 periods.

        1. Onusonus profile image77
          Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Well you put the notion out there. And it's completely backwards.

          Washington's economic policy was nothing like todays liberals or conservatives.

          Were he alive today we would be calling him a libertarian, regardless of whether he were in favor of centralized banks or not. Those guys were reading Adam Smith, not Karl Marx.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            I explained it to you.  So, if you choose not to understand it, that is up to you.

            No, he wouldn't have been a libertarian, at least that is not the way his biography reads.  Libertarians believe that government should stay out of everybody's business and leave the economy entirely alone.  Washington signed off on a type of Federal Reserve - no libertarian would ever do that would they?

            BTW, why did you bring in Marx?  His theory is not liberal, read Keynesian, economics.

            1. Castlepaloma profile image75
              Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I don't understand Liberal or conservative politics anymore than Religion.

              My personal attitude would be more liberal to explore and expand like the universe, to be creative. Goverments should not be creative and stay out of our business, if we are not harming any person or thing. The only job the Government is, is to protect us. Over security and wars are harming are freedom, economy and security.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Your key phrase, Castlepaloma, is ", if we are not harming any person or thing." 

                So let me ask, what do you want government to do when you personally or a large segment of society or society itself or the environment is being hurt by someone or some group or by another segment of society?

                To me government has two choices: 1) stand by and let it happen and let many people be hurt or 2) do something about it to try to mitigate the damage.  There is no middle ground as I see it.  So which option do you choose?

                1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                  Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  US is not a democracy, it's not Republic. US is a oligarchy. Even democracy has to consider minority groups like gays, 10℅ of population is Gays. Homosexual are illegal in 76 countries right now.

                  Corperatcracy has became the new Globalisms meaning it makes no difference anymore what party wins, they are all puppet's to special interest groups Corperations. They must make high profits regardless of the cost to be social and environmental organization, no protection. By means of debt, bribery and political overthrow. The Government is no longer protecting the majority of people, they more  interchangeable with Corperationism, to avoid responsibility and defeating smaller competition. Greatly lacking any integrity leaving the public vulnerable  like economic slaves

                  Banks have done nothing for poverty and they give lowest bid to sweatshops waving a white flag, wail big Corperations soar. Trump wage increase won't help high inflation. We no longer live in World of culture and Idealogy, US is a business.

                  There is solution model for protection. Iceland removed their bankruptcy to being one the happiness  countries in the world.  By locking up many bankers and politicans, their women have the true balls.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    That all may be true, but how do you answer my previous question.  Also, corporations are not responsible for the most pernicious harm being done in America - racism.  What role should government play in that?

            2. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I know Keynes, Read Friedman.

            3. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              By the way, Liberal professors are always spewing out Marx, Trotsky, etc. pumping it into the soft heads of our college youth. You know, that stuff that has never ever worked in practice.

              1. My Esoteric profile image91
                My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I have listened to lots and lots of professors on a large variety of topics in my 70 years.  Never heard one spew Marx, et al. (except when that was the subject)

                1. Onusonus profile image77
                  Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  So there's no Marxist professors? I bet I can show you at least thirty videos of students filming their professors going on socialist, or communist rants.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Did you have a Marxist professor in your college, Onus?  Or did you attend college at all?

                  2. My Esoteric profile image91
                    My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Be my guest, although you will probably have trouble finding 30 DIFFERENT professors doing that.  And, even if you could, exactly what does it prove if you can find 30 professors out of tens of thousands, who actually "rant" in support of socialism and communism?

            4. GoldenRod LM profile image97
              GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              The concept of the modern central bank did not appear until the 20th century. Hancock and Washington would be rolling in their graves if they saw what it has become. I agree on your opinion of the number of professors ranting about socialism or communism. I have listened to many - they just lulled me to sleep.

    4. GA Anderson profile image84
      GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Hi My Esoteric, your OP prompts an interesting thought. Bear in mind it is just a thought - not a challenge or affirmation of the OP's point.

      Did your research consider the "inherited" times of those Liberal and Conservative administrations? For example; a comparison of the economic times Clinton inherited would not seem valid as compared to the economy Obama inherited. Or, perhaps Hoover vs. Roosevelt?

      Or, does that question even matter? Are your numbers just indicators of administration performance - regardless of starting point?


      GA

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        GA, not yet but that has crossed my mind to look at in this piece.  Other hubs did try to measure that.

        However, this piece is concerned with longer time periods.  Basically, the periods I chose is when fiscal and/or social policies changed.  For example, the administrations between 1860 - 1884 held a completely different world view than say the administrations between 1852 - 1860.

        BTW - I forget to mention Trump's record for the first 1.25 years of his administration - 2.47%.  Once his four years is over, it will become the 11th conservative period.

        Personally, I think the 2nd Qtr report will be the zenith of his economic growth; these tariffs are going to kill him and America

        Also, while it won't show up in his term or even the next two or three, his immigration policy, if successful, will slow GDP growth substantially in the decades to come.

      2. GoldenRod LM profile image97
        GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I will let Princeton research speak for itself. From the abstract, "The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and perhaps greater defense spending and faster growth abroad."
        This paper is great reading. All should take a gander. https://www.princeton.edu/~mwatson/pape … ly2015.pdf

    5. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I think you have to consider the varying factors:

      1) How strong the Party in Control of Congress is - to harken to a recent example, during Clinton's Administration the Republicans gained firm control of Congress, and therefore dictated the direction of the economy.  While we tend to give credit to Presidents, its often who controls Congress (or who controls the politicians in Congress) that determines economic growth.


      2) War - This depends on whether we are supporting full-scale war efforts, or half-effort war efforts.  When the country fully committed to the war effort and industry is working overtime to keep up with demands being placed on it, we see growth during, and long after, the war (as America after WWII was the industrialized nation left unscathed, it was able to benefit/capitalize on the incapability of other nations to do so).

      3) External forces - Other nations and occurrences can impact the growth (or lack) of the economy.  When OPEC formed and flexed its economic muscles in the 1970s that impacted things drastically, a perfect example of how outside forces can impact the nation directly.

      And of course, Democrat or Republican is just a label that glosses over the differences and distinctions of era and personality.  John Kennedy held more views in common with Donald Trump (despite one being far more articulate than the other) than he did with Barak Obama.  Kennedy believed in the Sovereignty of the Nation, he wanted to break apart the CIA (and of course the development of the NSA into what its become), I don't for a second think he would have supported the idea of a One-World government, a weaker America, or the efforts to eradicate the Constitution. He was too well educated, one only has to read 'Profiles in Courage' to glimpse his perspective on America's history and struggles, the last thing he would support is its eradication so that it could be rewritten.

      1. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Thanks for you insights Ken.

        The idea is that by looking at swaths of time, most of those "other" factors, of which as you pointed out, are many, are spread out among the various administrations and equally represented.

        Take war - was the economy during a particular period (not necessarily administration) significantly impacted by war?  Was the period, using my terms, conservative or liberal?  Did war impact only the conservative periods or just the liberal periods.

        Split Parties - Were conservative periods more weighted toward cases where the president and Congress were of different party, or were liberal periods?

        External Forces - Again, did these forces impact disproportionately the conservative periods more than the liberal periods or vice-versa?

        Agrarian vs Industrial - Once more, were liberal periods more agrarian than conservative ones or the other way around?

        My assumption is that each of those factors, over the 150 year history, are equally represented in each period.  (this is why I took such a long look)

        Now, what if the answer to any of these is yes, then the question becomes "why".  Why were conservative periods more prone to the effect of wars? Why were liberal periods more prone to split government and what was the real effect if this is the case.

        I don't use Democratic or Republican labels for exactly the reason you give, the only constant is which philosophy, conservative or liberal, effected the economy more for any given period of years.

        1. Castlepaloma profile image75
          Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Kennedy, the last of the good Presidents.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I think that has a lot of merit, taking the political party aspect out of it to look at it from the type of economic policy being pursued and why (if that can indeed be accurately broken down into Liberal vs Conservative) … is a rather brilliant approach. 

          Had I taken the time to read through more of the comments rather than just the opening statement, my comment might have been more relevant.

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        BTW - you seem to have been done in by the right-wing propaganda machine.  President Kennedy, for example, wanted the CIA and special operators to prosecute the Vietnam War rather than regular forces.  Doesn't sound like he wanted to disband the CIA.

        All of those things you attribute to Obama are factually false.  Provide concrete examples where Obama wanted a One-World Government and the rest of the presidents before him didn't.  Provide concrete examples of all of those other, frankly, ridiculous claims.

        The fact is Trump is and has been mentally unstable. There is nothing about him that makes him fit for the job of President of the United States.  In less than 18 months he has attacked and turned allies into enemies and fellow murderous dictators into friends. (Trump is not a real dictator yet, but only because our system of government gets in his way, but relative to the Republican party is the definition of a strongman who will brook zero resistance to his rule - just ask those Republicans he "primaried"

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          "The fact is Trump is and has been mentally unstable."

          Can you supply a physician's report of a thorough examination concluding mental illness, or are you just parroting the rants of the far left again?

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
            JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Maybe you haven't seen this but here's just one example of Mr. Trump's severe mental illnesses which include paranoia, delusional episodes, hallucinations and tizzy anger fits like this:

            You don't need a degree or any other special knowledge to understand this anxious mush mind is detached from reality: He also believes Ted Cruz' father was responsible for JFKs assassination and slurs his speech:

            Abnormal behavior from an abnormal, mentally unstable imbecile:


            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              I repeat: when you have a report of a thorough examination by a qualified psychiatrist, concluding mental illness, then you can report that he is mentally ill.

              Until then you're just spouting hate and lies, nothing more, for you do not have a diagnosis by anyone qualified to make one.

              1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
                JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                lol: When you receive a report by a qualified psychiatrist which there are many in existence, you'll simply continue to deny his mental illness and demand another report from another qualified psychiatrists and then another and yet another: Trump needs to be removed ASAP before it's too late:

                "Psychiatrists Warn About Trump’s Mental State"

                "To the Editor:

                I am the editor of “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.” We represent a much larger number of concerned mental health professionals who have come forward to warn against the president’s psychological instability and the dangers it poses. We now number in the thousands.

                We are currently witnessing more than his usual state of instability — in fact, a pattern of decompensation: increasing loss of touch with reality, marked signs of volatility and unpredictable behavior, and an attraction to violence as a means of coping. These characteristics place our country and the world at extreme risk of danger."

                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/opin … trump.html

                I think we all know the little republican game by now: Deny Deny Deny:

                In reality, Bozo Trump is the sickest most angry and sadistic retarded nut case I've ever seen in my life, you don't need a degree to realize that fact, we've all beared witness to it for the last 3 chaotic years:

        2. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I would have to disagree with your point that what I said Obama wanted was false, if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords, and the great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB then you could only conclude he was in support of a unified one-world system.

          Nothing particularly wrong with that at all, other than we are not at a time in our history where collectively the world is ready for that or could make it work, and however well intended (or not) those pursuing that agenda may be, they seem to miss the concept that countries like China and Russia don't plan on playing nice and going along with that if they can help it.

          BUT let me add, that wasn't merely Obama's plan or efforts, the nation has been guided along that road uninterrupted thru Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama, the names changed, the Party changed, the same policies continued to be implemented throughout.

          So in that sense, I should not have pointed the finger merely at Obama in that instance, they are all culpable, Trump is the first time the nation has veered off the course it has been on in over a quarter century.

          We are closer being on the cusp of a split world economy, where BRICS frees itself from dependency on the petro-dollar than we are of implementing a successful one-world government within the next generation.


          Trump is the same guy he was before he became President, lot of bravado, bluster, and ego... he is nothing like the boogymen types and evil historical figures so many in the MSM try to make him out to be.  Fortunately the majority of America (even if its only a slim majority) has woken up to the fact that the MSM hysteria is mostly fiction.

          1. My Esoteric profile image91
            My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            The thing is, most people, including me, think the ' if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords ..." are very good, if not necessary, actions.  The first one isolates China economically, not now Trump has isolated America. The second would have at least postponed, if not reverse the devastation climate change WILL bring if nothing is done - Trump, and apparently you, are blind to the truth about what is happening with the climate are working to kill my and your own grandkids and commit suicide.

            And what "great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB" would these be? "Handing over America's sovereignty and one-world government" are false propaganda lines designed to scare unthinking Americans.  Why do you think America can even survive isolated from the rest of world?  It has never worked in the past and won't work now.

            You do realize that Trump is governing by EO don't you?

            Why did you forget every president after Jefferson when you created the "Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr. and Obama, ... " list?  Jefferson was the last president who tried isolationism and it didn't work.  Why is Trump smarter than all of these other presidents put together?

            "Trump is the same guy he was before he became President, lot of bravado, bluster, and ego..." you could have stopped there with that truth.  The majority of Americans by a large margin reject Trump. A monkey could have beat Clinton given her terrible campaigning, forgetting the white male, Comey, and Putin.  Even as flawed as she was as a candidate, Clinton would have won if it hadn't been for Comey and Putin. Don't forget that Trump won by less than 90,000 votes in exactly the places Clinton didn't think she needed to campaign.

            Trump is dangerous, unstable, and mentally ill and that is apparently what the right wants for a president.

            1. Randy Godwin profile image93
              Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              You'll find out those who voted for Dubya detest Obama for his cleaning up Dubya's mess. After supporting a reckless POTUS through two terms of a rubber stamp Congress, he only succeeded in invading a country on false claims of WMDs and ruining the economy.

              Naturally his voters feel some shame in defending him and his VP during the Haliburton and Blackwater scams, and lest we forget, Cheney was a former Haliburton CEO.


              Damn Obama for cleaning up his mess!!  lol

              1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I watch G.Bush admit on YouTube that 9/11 could have been an inside Job. Wail his wife was in shock, starring at him.

                If you could have read her mind. She would  have said, Are YOU completely NUTS!

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  And the same folks who supported him are now kissing Spanky's tremendous ass. History repeats itself....

              2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                I don't see Obama cleaning up anything, and anyone who chooses to take of their blinders, or stops looking at things through the prism of 'their side' winning or losing, can see this.

                Obama gave is the destruction of Libya as a functional nation, creating more chaos, bloodshed and refugees.  Obama gave us Syria as well, more chaos, bloodshed and refugees.  Partaking in the destruction of nations, and thereby the murder of hundreds of thousands of people is not cleaning up anything.

                Obama did not end Afghanistan, he did not end Iraq, he did not broker peace anywhere, and he gifted the world the collapse of Libya and Syria.

                What is it that he cleaned up?

                1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                  Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Dubya's recession, or did Obama create that as well?  lol

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Obama fixed nothing, the Wall St. wolves were let in to 'fix it' by bailing out the banks, and tripling the national debt.

                    The best thing about Obama is he gave people "Hope" even if there was no "change" at a time when millions were losing their homes and their jobs. 

                    As I said in an earlier comment, there was no direction change, no positive policy change in a quarter century.  From Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama, there was a lot of rhetoric and fingerpointing, but we kept right on driving down the same exact road.  And it was the people of America that paid the price for it.  Eventually enough of them got sick of it, and we got Trump.

            2. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              "most people, including me, think the 'if you look into what the TPP, the Paris Accords ...' are very good, if not necessary, actions.  The first one isolates China economically, not now Trump has isolated America. The second would have at least postponed, if not reverse the devastation climate change WILL bring if nothing is done "

              TPP would have done nothing for America however, it was pro-International business, and would have helped protect the very top tier earners.  It would have helped in the moving of jobs overseas, as has been going on for decades now.  The 'working class' would have lost more job opportunities.

              The Paris Accords was a transfer of wealth via taxation that would have worked its way down to the 'working class' in North America and Europe, so while we would have had to pay for our 'carbon footprint' nations like China (who by far consumes far more coal than we do) and India were allowed to skate, because they were 'developing nations'.

              Having been to places like China and Korea, I can tell you there is nothing 'developing' about those countries unless your term of 'developing' is meant to mean becoming more technologically and industrially capable than America is.

            3. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              "And what "great many EOs that he signed which handed over America's sovereign rights to the U.N., WTO, or WB" would these be? "Handing over America's sovereignty"

              Obama signs Law of the Sea Treaty ... United States' coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations' Law Of Sea Treaty ...

              Obama signs the United Nations Biodiversity Treaty, our National Parks owned by American citizens for over 200 years, have been turned over to the UN. The UN has ultimate jurisdiction.

              That's two, I could find more unfortunately, but I wanted to note them merely to prove the validity of the statement.

    6. GoldenRod LM profile image97
      GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      It has been pretty well shown that Democrat presidents serve in luckier times. 
      Let's put this nonsense to bed., Esoteric. If you say the same things over and argue until everyone ignores you, it does't mean you are right.

      From Blinder and Watson -
      "The U.S. economy has performed better when the President of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (on which we focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why. The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly from more benign oil shocks, superior TFP performance, and perhaps greater defense spending and faster growth abroad." - Princeton 2015
      You are far from esoteric. You get a bit chippy when your argument starts to slide. It is rather humorous. Move on to more fertile grounds. This discussion is over.

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image79
        JAKE Earthshineposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        So you want us to believe that President Clinton was 'lucky' for 8 years with his stellar economy, President Bush was 'unlucky' with his disastrous 8 year economy, President Obama was 'lucky' with his 8 year stellar economy and now phony President Trump is unlucky with his disastrous economy?

        I'm not so sure you have a credible story: There is a clear distinction between Dems and Cons with regard to the economy: I think policies or lack there of contributed to the results, not 'luck of the draw': Right now, we have an incoherent, dangerously absurd Russian Poodle influencing our economy from the inside and he's doing everything within his power for whatever reason to undermine and weaken President Obama's once great economy: American companies are exporting jobs and our wealth at a more accelerated pace which Vladimir Putin must approve of: The sooner Mr. Trump is indicted, tried and imprisoned for life, the sooner we can begin to salvage what's left of a rapidly collapsing USA:

        1. GoldenRod LM profile image97
          GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          It's credible. Just read.

        2. GoldenRod LM profile image97
          GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I get it. This is a rant page. LOL

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        "It has been pretty well shown that Democrat presidents serve in luckier times. " - LOL, you have got to be kidding me!

        1. GoldenRod LM profile image97
          GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Just read.

        2. GoldenRod LM profile image97
          GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Furthermore, this is just a rant page. No problem.

      3. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        I read through Binder and Watson.  Here is what I noticed relative to what I presented at the outset.

        1. My data set starts in 1800 and theirs starts in 1947

        2. I considered periods where conservative economics dominated or liberal economics dominated. They looked at individual Republican and Democratic presidential terms

        3. Because they are looking only at 1947 on, then Republican generally equal conservative theory while Democrats represent liberal economics.  Prior to 1947, that was not necessarily the case, in fact, it was generally the opposite.

        4. I was asking the question about whether conservative or liberal economic theory did better.  They were asking if election outcomes help predict subsequent macroeconomic performance?

        5. I noticed that when they did consider periods before the Great Depression, they fall into the same trap most people do - they think Democrats and Republicans held the same economic views then as they do today - and that is simply not true and would have a significant impact on their findings if they extended it before 1933.

        So, let's look at their conclusion; which is much more than you suggest.

        1. 4.2 Was it just luck? - Statistical significance levels are meant to answer such questions. And in this case, the verdict is clear:It is highly unlikely that the D-R growth gap was just luck, in the sense of more
        favorable random draws from the same distribution.


        2. For the period 1947 to the end of the study period, they conclude that 46% to 62% of the 1.8% GDP growth difference was "potentially" due to luck facts of oil, productivity, and war.  But that means 38% to 54% is due to "other" factors that require further research.

        3. They don't rule out possible policy differences which lead to the "luck" aspect they identify.

        4.  BUT, I have to repeat, their study ONLY applies to the period after 1947, and because of data limitation really only after 1964.

        Thanks for offering this - it is a great source for statistical techniques and data.

  2. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago

    Good question? if Republican economy record is much better. The combined policy categories could be a sweep for them.

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I am guessing you are mis-reading the numbers. 

      To Be Clear:

      The Republican (2018) = Conservative growth rate is far worse than the Democratic (2018) = Liberal GDP growth rate.

      1. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Sorry, switched wrong labels.

        What category dose Republican have on Democrats?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          It depends on when you are talking about.  Give me a date and I will give you the parties dominant philosophy.

          For example: if you ask about 1864 then my answer is Republican (1864) = liberal and Democrat (1864) = conservative

          But in 1964  then my answer is Republican (1964) = conservative and Democrat (1964) = somewhat liberal (although there was a large contingent of conservative southern Ds at that point in time)

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    All social / political history should be TAUGHT  , all of it from A-Z   Alinskyism , Maoism to Nazism ,   But what it should never be is indoctrinated , as social /political reengineering is happening  from preschool day- care on to college right under the parent's noses  in America .

    1. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      What's strange to me are the people who act like there's no bias when the data clearly shows the kids are being indoctrinated by their leftist professors.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image93
        Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        What data, Ms.?

        1. Onusonus profile image77
          Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Stop doing that.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Sure, as soon as you give your real name so I can tell what gender your are. smile

            1. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              You are deliberately using the wrong pronoun to extort me into giving you my personal information.

              1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                You're way to scared to give your personal info, Ma'am. In fact, with the dearth of hubs and your lack of success on HP, you're really just a troll using the forums to spout your anonymous political BS.

                1. Onusonus profile image77
                  Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  I am a man, please stop harassing me.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image93
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    How can we tell you're a man with a fake name and photo on your profile, Ms? I'm so sorry you're afraid to use your real name when you're commenting on the political forums.  If you did it would make your claims more credible, but I can see you're too afraid of everyone to do so.

                    Have a good day, Honey. tongue

  4. GoldenRod LM profile image97
    GoldenRod LMposted 5 months ago

    "So what explains the better economic performance under Democratic presidents? Blinder and Watson identified two factors—oil shocks and increases in what’s called Total Factor Productivity—as the main culprits. Nixon, Ford, and George W. Bush were unlucky to have their presidencies coincide with large increases in oil prices, while Democratic presidents, with the exception of Carter, served during a time of flat or falling energy prices, a dynamic that can provide big boosts to the domestic economy." See http://fortune.com/2014/07/29/economic- … residents/
         I don't think we can draw any conclusions other than good luck.

    1. GoldenRod LM profile image97
      GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      I have also heard that the public does better when a Democratic president has a Republican Congress. Is that significant? Anybody out there?

    2. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Well said, I'm more inclined to think that the two parties hold each other up while acting like they despise each other in order to get nothing accomplished.

      1. GoldenRod LM profile image97
        GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        You may be getting close to the truth. smile

      2. My Esoteric profile image91
        My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        From 1995 on, there isn't much acting going on.  The two parties governed together effectively from 1960 to 1994.

    3. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Yes, oil was a major cause of the Nixon-Ford economic woes, but none of the others - especially George W.  By the time oil increased precipitously, the economy was already in fast decline due primarily a failed conservative economic theory that let it happen. 

      Also, Nixon-Ford and George W are only 2 of the 10 conservative periods. Energy wasn't a factor in the other 8.

      1. GoldenRod LM profile image97
        GoldenRod LMposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        The economy by 1983 rebounded and enjoyed a sustained period of growth as the annual inflation rate stayed below 5 percent for the remainder of the 1980s and part of the 1990s. Take out those two and see what's left. Our early presidents presided over an agrarian society. None of the early presidents could be construed as leftists economically. It seems quite a stretch. They all would be considered conservative by today's standards.
        I love reading your posts. Do you have a hit counter?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          In one sense you are correct about early presidents not knowing about Keynesian economics.  But that didn't stop them from implementing some of the policies and theories Keynes developed many years later to explain why conservative economics only seemed to work with times were good and actually made things worse when they went bad.

          Fundamental to "leftist" economics, as you call it, is the need for government to intervene in the marketplace when it starts to head south.  The vehicle for that intervention is the Federal Reserve which actively controls the money supply.

          I presume you know your history and remember that George Washington and Alexander Hamilton started the first Fed look-alike.  It was called the First Bank of the United States and was violently opposed by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  That bank was the 1790 version of the Federal Reserve, that leftist institution,.

          To continue, President Jackson let the First Bank's charter to expire only to have James Madison, the mighty foe of the 1st Bank, to charter the Second Bank of the United States in order to bail America out of another great economic downturn.  Madison gritted his teeth and let government intervene and control interest rates, money supply, and the abolition of state money.

          So, because of the above, I have to heartily disagree with you that administrations of old didn't employ Keynesian economics when the country went to hell-in-a-breadbasket and needed saving again.  It took a long series of devastating depressions and recessions to finally convince Teddy Roosevelt and his Congress of the need for a true Federal Reserve in 1908.

          As to "conservative" vs "liberal" in the early days.  I'll let you do your own research as I have written about this extensively elsewhere but may I start you out by pointing out that Thomas Jefferson, slave owner as he was, was still a liberal while John C. Calhoun (d. 1850) was the epitome of a conservative.

          How do I differentiate between the two? Jefferson, while "economically stuck" with being a slave owner was nevertheless one of the great proponents of eventual emancipation.  Calhoun, on the other hand, prepared the way for civil war with his defense of slavery.

      2. Castlepaloma profile image75
        Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Interesting,  US has lost the gold standard,  back in 1973.

        Since then our leaders over focus on oil and have created a debtors system and a very toxic environment.

  5. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Onusonus,  The wanna- be leftist riff- raff here are mostly of an age who were indoctrinated and fell into lock step , black belts across their chests , tan shirts , high fiving leftist who'd rather die than think for themselves .  Don't let them get to you ,  if you'll notice it's never  a reasoning they produce .  It's just one shock jock line saying after another after another  ,very Howard Stern's if you will .

    Facts ? Not a one.
    Truths ? Nope
    Back up data , Un uhh ! Just  pure net troll .

    1. Onusonus profile image77
      Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      It's flat out harassment. The guy has seen me in and out of this forum over the last 9 years and all of a sudden decides to label me a woman.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Intellectual leftist delusions are like that .  still delusions .

        1. Onusonus profile image77
          Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Well totalitarianism is alive and well with the advocates of the left, and one thing a totalitarian regime can't stand is ambiguity. One of the very freedoms that we celebrate in a free society.
          Of course I may never be as relevant as say, George Orwell, or Mark Twain, But my relevance belongs to me.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image93
            Randy Godwinposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            And just who are YOU to say what's relevant to anyone? What are your qualifications to do so, Honey?

            1. Onusonus profile image77
              Onusonusposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              Don't call me Honey.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Ignore him , there are many a forum troll here .

  6. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 months ago

    One can easily identify HP trolls by the lack of hubs and views, as well as a fake name and photo on their profiles. They cannot succeed as writers on the site, and for some reason, they expect to be taken seriously even though are as anonymous as they can be. Truly too frightened to stand behind their claims using a real name in the forums, sorta like the anonymous Xtians who want to preach behind a wall...

    Anyone can easily check my identity as I'm not terrified to give my real name like some from the right. I stand behind my words and am unafraid of someone knowing who I am. Not surprised at all you guys are so scared to put a real name behind your claims though. lol

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

      Well said!

      1. GA Anderson profile image84
        GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

        Come on My Esoteric, that was not "Well  said." It was the culmination of a series of petty responses trying to denigrate and insult another forum poster, using their hub count and username as clubs.

        I don't think either have any bearing on a political discussion forum, but apparently you and Randy do.

        Does that mean that you think someone that joins HP primarily for the forums, rather than writing hubs is nothing more than a low IQ troll that is afraid to stand behind their opinions - My Esoteric?

        Do you think that a real name username is a criteria for credibility - My Esoteric?

        Apparently Randy's answer would be yes to both questions. (but, I would bet there is one username that perfectly fits his Onusonus" judgement model that he would exempt)

        I just gritted my teeth and moved along as Randy carried these type of responses to more and more hostile and insulting levels, but then you come along and say Well said!. Geez Louise - My Esoteric.

        Did you even consider how wrong those high-horse assumptions of his could be? What if his "judgments" of Onusonus were applied to a username like My Esoteric, or Camping with Kids?

        I only have 40-some hubs under GA Anderson, and I have only written one "GA Anderson" hub in the last couple of years here. My earnings writing efforts are applied to my own sites for the last several years. I only visit now for my forum participation. That seems to qualify me to fit Randy's model of judgement - as he has applied to Onusonus

        But, I have multiple other HP accounts - all using demographic-specific usernames; like, Camping with Kids. I don't remember the exact number, but although forum members can only see my 40+ GA Anderson hubs, I have close to 200 under the other account's usernames. (HP rules only allow us to use one username to post to forums, so I chose my "opinion" account - GA Anderson as my forum identity)

        Could it be possible that Onusonus might be a similar example?

        Do you view me as a low IQ forum troll My Esoteric? My thoughts and behavior would be the same if I had chosen my Camping with Kids as my forum ID.

        Geesh, what a rant. I am not defending Onusonus, I just saw red when someone that I considered to have a bit of forum credibility dumps it down the drain by affirming a culminating post that I see as really poor form.

        But, it did feel good to finally get that off my chest. Sometimes sticking to polite and civil behavior can be a pain in the ass. Fortunately, for me, this forum provides ample examples that fortify my resolve, so that lapses like this one are few and far in-between.

        https://hubstatic.com/13904384.jpg

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          Well said!

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            Ha! My kind of wit Ken.

            https://hubstatic.com/13904384.jpg

        2. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

          I understand what you say, GA, but then I find that

          ahorseback has no bio and one article in 8 years.

          Onusonus does has no bio but does much better with 71 articles in 9 years

          bradmasterOCcal has no bio but a 116 articles in 3 years but if memory serves was kicked off of HP once.

          and then there is GA Anderson - Great bio with 46 articles in 7 years.

          The first three are trolls while the latter is not.

          1. GA Anderson profile image84
            GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

            *sigh... Still hanging on to the username and article measuring stick.

            Of course I think you are wrong, but I accept that is your choice. Mine is different, but then, I have always been a fan of Baskin-Robbins for the same reason - a flavor for everyone.

            GA

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              :-)

            2. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

              BTW, GA.  I have a new book for you: "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" by Bandy Lee, M.D., M.Div.  It is a compilation of papers submitted by 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts' assessment of Trump.

              I am turning the contents of each paper into a hub as well as including summaries in the hub I have already written on Trump's mental health.

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Did any of those "experts" do an actual examination of him?  Even one of them?

                Or are they making a faux "diagnosis" of the political persona he presents and then, ignoring any professional ethics they might have once had, going public with opinions unsubstantiated by any actual examination?

                Why in the world would anyone (not suffering from TDS) buy something from such quacks?

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                  Nope, that is the first topic they cover - why they can say what they do with only reviewing thousands of hours of tweets, books, audio, and video over decades of Trump's volatile life.  Since you haven't bothered to look at their credentials, I won't bore you with the details, you won't agree anyway.

                  But for everyone else who is interested, every one of the 28 mental health experts are top in their respective fields.   "Quacks" indeed!

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    Yes, quacks.  Publishing a medical diagnosis on anyone, President or not, is very much against medical ethical standards.  And doubly so when there was no examination ever done - only a "quack" would ever do such an unethical thing.

                    It is, plain and simple, a political statement that "I don't like Donald Trump" - no different than the thousands of others we hear and see.  The only difference is they are ruining their reputation by using that reputation to put a false appearance of legitimacy to it.

                  2. GA Anderson profile image84
                    GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                    You have drawn me in My Esoteric. First, I think Wilderness has a valid point about a diagnosis without direct interview interaction.

                    But then, I think you have a point when you refer to the credentials - they are the tops in their fields" - of the authors.

                    So, I did a Google search of the Book's title.

                    https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Dan … p;ie=UTF-8

                    Then, I read the links of the first two search pages - minus the ones that were just selling the book - like the Amazon links.

                    What I ended up with was an affirmation of my agreement with Wilderness' point.

                    Throughout the articles I read, I came across the explanations, by the authors, of why they felt their observational diagnosis was a valid diagnosis, and, necessary to be made public - regardless of the profession's long-held adherence to the "Goldwater Rule." And those explanations sounded credible -- until -- I looked for the reasons they decided to go public, (in book form), and, the ideological perspectives that would influence their perceptions.

                    There were a ton of excerpts that would validate their efforts - for someone that wanted to believe what they were saying, but there were also a lot of excerpts that would invalidate those same rationals - for someone that was skeptical from the start.

                    I won't list them, I am sure you have already read the same articles, but, the references to the liberal ideologies of the authors, (by a supporter of the book), the references to Noam Chomsky(sp?), (by multiple contributors), and, their declared opposition to the anti-Liberal direction our country is taking, sealed the deal for me.

                    This is not a book I can view as an unbiased reference. And I don't think that means I am ignoring the credentials of the authors, it just means that I think their "diagnosis" is ideologically driven - a point made, (more than once, although not as a rebuttal to their diagnosis), by the authors of the reviews and evaluations, of the articles.  It would be an interesting hindsight moment to see if those authors maintained their diagnosis - after a thorough in-person interview. Such as what they might do under normal circumstances before forming a diagnosis.
                    .
                    https://hubstatic.com/13904384.jpg

              2. GA Anderson profile image84
                GA Andersonposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Thanks for thinking of me My Esoteric, but I will pass on that one. Just as I would pass on one claiming to document how Pres. Trump is the best thing since sliced bread.

                GA

              3. Castlepaloma profile image75
                Castlepalomaposted 5 months agoin reply to this

                Oh brother, taking a journey through the horrible mind of Trump is a ride I will never take again.

                My experience dealing on contract with megalomanic like Trump. They are more mentally more cunning than you or the psychiatrist are. You just have to get rid of negative people like Trump or they harm you then they get rid of you anyways.

  7. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 months ago

    Bok, bok, bok, bok, bokow...

  8. Randy Godwin profile image93
    Randy Godwinposted 5 months ago

    Sez another anonymous forum troll....tongue

  9. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 5 months ago

    I don't know why you guys support any of these Presidents. They only manage to create  worst messes than the one before.

  10. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 5 months ago

    Who is more responsible  ! Obama's twenty Trillion dollars in debt pretty much explains it all for fiscally responsible people . Especially conservatives but even to a couple of democrats .

    Yet , Is there such a thing as a fiscally responsible Democrat at this point , after Obama ?

    $22,000,000,000,000

    1. My Esoteric profile image91
      My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

      Boy, your number keeps getting bigger with each telling.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 4 months agoin reply to this

        And the importance of Obama Debt gets less and less important to the left ,..................That federal credit card feels good in the pocket huh ?

        1. My Esoteric profile image91
          My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

          Ahorseback, the day you show a modicum of critical thinking ability is the day I, and probably many others, will start taking you seriously and not just a flame-thrower.

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 4 months agoin reply to this

            Esoteric, "flamethrowers "are what your media has come to fully represent ,  yet you have the nerve to say .".......take you seriously ............" ? Critical thinking  exists in my perception of ideology certainly  as much as it does yours  , if you can't defeat my posts stay home ,  if you can't effectively speak to issues as much as you apparently think  I do,  that's your problem not mine.   Otherwise my posts wouldn't bother you as they apparently do .

            1. My Esoteric profile image91
              My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

              Give me examples of where the mainstream media reports (meaning not opinion) untruths ON PURPOSE like Trump and Fox do (I will give you a couple of mistakes, but none on purpose).

              They simply don't exist.

              The ability to think critically is not bound by philosophy.  It is something you either do or don't do.  Critical thinkers do a lot of research and look for reasons WHY such and such is.

              Take for example your fascination with the so-called twenty billion dollar debt that was created under Obama's watch.

              First you write it in such a way which implies Obama was responsible for every dime of it - he wasn't.

              Then you don't tell the reader that the debt was already $10 trillion AND RAPIDLY increasing BEFORE Obama took office.

              Then you don't offer that there are different ways to count how much Obama added.  It ranges from $1 trillion to $9 trillion, depending on who you ask.  It is near the lower number if you take out how much the debt would have increased REGARDLESS of who was president. Then you don't mention that the rest of the debt was for digging America out of the huge hole Bush left us in.

              Now, I know many on the right think (they have said so many times) that it would have been better to let the world crash into a historic depression (no serious economist thinks otherwise in hindsight), but more intelligent minds prevailed.

              Nope, you don't cover any of that and simply pin the whole $20 trillion on Obama and the Democrats.

              1. profile image0
                ahorsebackposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                There you go again , ........totally ignoring reality .

                1. My Esoteric profile image91
                  My Esotericposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                  Are you seriously disagreeing with the truth; the facts?  Are you saying all $20 trillion in debt is the fault of Obama?  This is what I mean you lack the ability to think critically.  You response is proof to that.

                  1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                    Castlepalomaposted 4 months agoin reply to this

                    Obama did create half that debt and a record number of wars. He should forfeit his Nobel Peace prize.

  11. Castlepaloma profile image75
    Castlepalomaposted 4 months ago

    Kennedy had the highest annal GDP growth 5.5

    From each President afterwards the GDP has progressively gotten worst down to Bush and Obama near 2.00.

    Trump who promises the best economy.Is in the late winter of the 80 year cycle of the worst economy and social crises since deep depression/world war 2.
    Approx 80 year before that Civil War. Approx 80 years before Civil war the American Revolution and so on.

    Presidents do not have control of the economy. The power of the People do. The real owners of this country don't give a dam about you. They don't care at all... at all. It's only going to get worst.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)