Looking Forward to a Return to Normalcy

Jump to Last Post 1-8 of 8 discussions (113 posts)
  1. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/14673020.png
    If you think this is normal or helps promote the safety and efficient function of our government, please tell us how exactly?  This is just another one of the many reasons to get someone with some government experience back into the role of commander-in-chief.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I'm with you.  I hadn't heard about Bolton until you posted this.  Seeing it all laid out  like this.....Wow.  Just wow.

      Anyone out there believe all of this turnover (and the resulting vacancies) is a good thing?

    2. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Back to normal? Why do you think Trump won? Many American's are not satisfied with what some look at a normal.  Your normal may have been what many saw as status quo, failing policies, poor governing.

      1. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        So environmental protections, falling unemployment, consistent job growth, booming stock market, expanded civil rights, lower deficits were examples of poor governing?  All of these things were better under the last administration.  Please provide some examples of things that have improved with this clown show?

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          So odd how I see Obama's presidency so differently?  Have a great day.

          1. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Exactly.  I can provide the factual numbers that back up each of those statements and how the numbers for this administration are worse.  How you see it doesn't equal the reality of it.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              For sure.  Unemployment is way up since he took office, and employment way down.  Wages have fallen and the stock market has lost 20% of the value it had when he took office.  Manufacturing has left the country in droves and there are more people on food stamps than ever before.

              Yep, the numbers sure are worse, aren't they?

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Unemployment went from 7.7 to 4.7 over Obama's final term.  From 4.7 to 3.7 under Trump.  I'd say the difference favors Obama.

                Stock market was better under Obama, clearly:  https://fortune.com/2019/06/03/stock-ma … ma-sp-500/

                As for wages, they have been rising steadily since 2012.  People on food stamps had begun declining after 2013, long before Trump took office.  As the unemployment rate dropped, that's just common sense that less people need SNAP assistance.  Saying Trump is responsible when those trends began four years prior to his administration instituted a policy is pure ignorance.

                As for manufacturing, the tax cut gave it a boost, but the Trump tariffs have since nullified any gains in that area, even decimating the agricultural industry.  Not something I'd boast about if I were you.

                And all that before we even begin to talk about the deficit, ballooning to over a trillion dollars with a healthy economy.

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Good luck with that... LOL

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                No point, Trump supporters only believe the propaganda.  The way you saw the positive gains done during the Obama era in a negative light already proved it.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You put words in my mouth?

                  I think I answered your original question. To repeat, " Back to normal? Why do you think Trump won? Many American's are not satisfied with what some look at a normal.  Your normal may have been what many saw as status quo, failing policies, poor governing."

                  If you call good governing  Obama  handling of  Syria, you know turning his back on Genocide good governing?  Not sure we look at good governing in the same way?  When I compare how liberals complain about our current border crisis, and the way Trump is handling it, to Obama's handling of Syria.  It makes me wonder what kind of people can justify how Obama handled such a travesty?  I am sorry, he represented America, and this to me was one of our very lowest periods. I think it would be pointless to argue his virtues with such a stain on his presidency.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Let's go apples to apples, and not to oranges.  Even Obama thinks he could have done better in Syria, so I won't try and defend him.  But I don't think Obama ever sided with murderers, such as Trump has done with both Kim Jong Un in the Warmbier instance and Mohammad bin Salman in the Khashoggi killing.  And let's be really clear about the second example, he believes a murderer over the intelligence services of the United States.  It's going back to when he stood in Helsinki and said he believed Putin had no part in attacking the 2016 election.  Time and again, he sides with the despicable.  And you faulting Obama alone when he took the decision to bomb Syria to Congress and the GOP voted it down 183-12 is rather interesting.  Surprised you fail to mention that little tidbit and lay all the blame on Obama.

                    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html

                    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/worl … hoggi.html

                    Believe me, I understood why people took a chance on an outsider.  What we fail to understand is how you cannot recognize the trainwreck that has been this presidency, even when faced with the evidence.

                    As for the border, Obama deported more people than any president in history and targeted criminals for removal.  He increased funding for border security while also looking to solve the root causes of why people were coming to the United States.  And zero immigrant children died during his presidency.  Seven died from January 2018 to May 2019 alone under Trump.

                    Why can you excuse this administration for these deaths?  For siding with murderers?  What's the difference?

                  2. aware profile image66
                    awareposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    When I voted for Bill Clinton I caught grief for it. When I voted for Gore thank God I lost. When I voted for Bush I caught grief for it. When I voted for McCain thank God I lost. When I voted for Obama I caught grief for it. And when I voted for Trump I'm catching grief for it now. Why nothing is getting done in this country is not the fault of any politician. The blame squarely rest upon voters who cannot respect other voters . When ballots do not matter vote with a bullet.

      2. tsadjatko profile image56
        tsadjatkoposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Sharlee, Well said. This is what they want as normal. Corruption! DOJ watchdog submits draft report on alleged FISA abuses to Barr

        The Justice Department’s inspector general told lawmakers Friday his team is nearly finished with its long-awaited review of alleged surveillance abuses by the DOJ and FBI during the Russia investigation, saying they have submitted a draft to the attorney general and are “finalizing” the report ahead of its public release.

        https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-in … y-general.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          It will be very interesting to see how the Dem's in Washington and in the general public handle the Horowitz report. His findings have already bared spoiled fruit for them...  The Dem's, as a rule, turn against anyone that delivers bad news. Always sour grapes. I hope they will e reminded Horowitz was appointed by Obama...

          "President Obama Announces More Key Administration Posts
          WASHINGTON – Today, President Barack Obama announced his intent to nominate the following individuals to key Administration posts:

          https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/th … tion-posts

          Michael E. Horowitz – Inspector General, Department of Justice"

  2. Leland Johnson profile image91
    Leland Johnsonposted 5 weeks ago

    In some cases, yes.  The vacancies are a very good thing, especially James Comey who attempted nothing less than a coup de etat'.  Many others, I'm sure, just moved on.  The average job span of a White House Press Secretary is 18 months to 2 years.  I think it's important to remember that some of those listed, General Flynn for example, were set up, harassed, and threatened by a rogue justice department.  I liked Sara Sanders and John Bolton, so I am sad to see them go.  Some of those listed were caretakers for the swamp and, as promised, President Trump kicked them to the curb.

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Coup d'etat?  You mean by starting an investigation into the attack on our elections.  Protecting American democracy is attempting a coup d'etat to you?  And making a documented history when the President commits obstruction of justice in asking you to back off of Flynn is fine in your eyes?

      Flynn lying about his contacts with Russia to the FBI under oath was a setup?  Flynn, who was a representative of a foreign government in Turkey was a setup? 

      It's been three years, and you still think the previous government employees are the swamp and not the ones currently there that enrich themselves and are destroying the agencies they represent?

  3. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago

    There a whole lot of not normal going on. If the left wasn't hell bent on attacking everything about this presidency I think you'd have less unrest.

    Some people just can't take being constantly harassed and move on. As to the last on the list, I'm not displeased. My understanding is Bolton was extremely hawkish and Trump appears to want to avoid military conflict, if at all possible. Those two philosophies don't play well together.

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      And what the left sees is a man who broke multiple laws to get elected, is using his position to enrich himself, and promotes hate.  If those things don't warrant some oversight, I worry about what else you're willing to accept.

      As for Bolton, I agree with you.  The left isn't displeased either.  But Bolton was hawkish long before Trump hired him.  This was a public fact.  So if those philosophies didn't play well together, why the heck was he hired in the first place?  Just another example of Trump's bad appointing history, which is sort of the fact of the post.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        It's not just "the left" (whatever that is) who sees the corruption and hate, and let me add "incompetence" to the list.  Why do you think states are cancelling GOP primaries?  They are terrified that a challenger will draw significant support.

        History will not be kind to Trump or the Republican sycophants who enable this incompetent, corrupt, mentally ill liar.

      2. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Just because I don't buy into the delusion doesn't mean I accept things.  I see democrats promoting more hate than Trump does. And, quite frankly, it amazes me this fact deludes those screaming about hate.

        As to broken laws, when the IG report comes out I'm hoping to have enough information, finally, to make some sense of the mess.

        The difference between you and I appears to be I need all of the facts, you are happy to run with what sounds good to you and are happy to ignore everything else.

        1. Valeant profile image96
          Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Fact - Trump used his foundation funds on his campaign.  Illegal, NY shuts down the Trump Foundation and bans Trump or his kids from sitting on the board of any charitable organization for ten years ( https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/embattl … d=59884847).
          Fact - Cohen supplied audio tape of Trump ordering him (he actually says - pay with cash - on the tape) to make the payment to McDougal.  Illegal, Cohen sentenced to jail for this crime and names Trump as co-conspirator (https://www.ajc.com/news/national/micha … gXamENVpI/)
          Facts - Trump has spent nearly a third of his presidency at his own properties (https://www.newsweek.com/trump-spent-on … rt-1455319), the military is using its resources to support his Scotland Golf Course (https://www.military.com/daily-news/201 … esort.html) (https://www.yahoo.com/news/iowa-nationa … 59651.html), and in violation of the law, often makes statements to promote his own properties.

          The difference between you and I is that I know what a fact is apparently.  As for promoting hate, let us know when someone shoots someone based on rhetoric from a candidate.  El Paso shooter quotes directly from Trump, Florida mail bomber directly targets those Trump attacks in the media.  Now that's a fact.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Twisted facts,  to suit your agenda,  on the hate crimes.  Reasonable,  decent,  voices on the left have called your rhetoric out for exactly what it is.

            As for the rest, at least you aren't pushing the Russian collusion lie.

            Scotland,  under review.  Love the way you don't wait for facts, just run for the tar and feathers.

            Shady campaign use of funds.  Is there a politician in the public eye who has never been under investigation,  someone asking for an investigation or suggestions of improprieties with funds? Possibly,  but many are and have been.  I don't see you commenting on any other current ones.

            I've said it before and I'll say it again. If any break the law they should be held accountable.  But,  you don't get to bypass the law just because you hate someone.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              All you Trump lovers claim it's hate when anyone points out the facts of the laws he has clearly broken.  The office he holds prevents that accountability currently, but it's fairly obvious to see his guilt with the facts that exist and are listed above.  Your deflection to these other mystery dirty politicians does not excuse his clear guilt.  That was a weak attempt, in fact.

              Who are these reasonable, decent voices on the left?  Again, you make these vague statements to debate me, but provide very little substance.  I provide you multiple links to back up my factual claims that you doubt. 

              Because here are some reasonable, decent voices on the left that clearly agree with me:
              https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … -supremacy
              https://time.com/5644433/donald-trump-e … ing-words/
              https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ … 767510001/
              https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/t … cna1039286
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … e-el-paso/
              https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu … mps-racism
              https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/ … st-1445700

  4. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 5 weeks ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14675663.jpg

  5. tsadjatko profile image56
    tsadjatkoposted 4 weeks ago

    “ I like to gain some knowledge about the issues before making things up.”

    Lol, so Valeant you admit you make things up! Lol

    1. Valeant profile image96
      Valeantposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Totally.  All those links to support my point of view must be fake.

  6. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 4 weeks ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14681722.jpg

    1. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      This is not worth responding to.  Talk about slanted all kind of crazy...

      1. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Says one of the 35%.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image85
          Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          Not sure of where you look to for polls?  Although polls have been well proven to be inaccurate. Remember Trump's polls the day of the election? They reflected a landslide for Hillary. Not trying to be snarky, just saying..

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I was referring to the 35% described in the quote. Did you not read it?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I was referring to Schmidt's statement the paragraph where he seems to be referring to a poll and accusing part of the population of belonging to a cult...

              "This is deliberate. This is an assault on objective truth. And once you get people to surrender their sovereignty, what is true is what the leader says is true, what is true is what the leader believes is true, even though what’s true is staring you in the face. when that happens, you are no longer living in a democratic republic. 35% of this country has checked out. They have joined a cult.They are obedient. They are obedient to the leader.”

              I realize his statement was an opinion, but just would like to know where he got 35 % of the country from now belong to a cult?  Not sure of where he pulled this 35% from? Perhaps he should not have used any percentage without clarifying his statement?  Being an opinion piece he could have just kept to his views, and just said: "people that voted for Trump".  I am sure he was referring to something, a poll perhaps?

              1. PrettyPanther profile image84
                PrettyPantherposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I really don't think swelling on that number is as important as the statement itself. I have never seen you condemn Dear Leader. Is there snything, anything at all, that you find abhorrent about his words, actions, policies, tweets? Anything?

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I have answered this question form other here on HP.  However not in awhile.
                  "abhorrent about his words"  I find his words in some cases rude, bullying, as well as redundant. I find him on occasions abrasive, and self-centered.
                  I also have found him to be transparent, and uncensored, unlike many politicians.

                  Actions ---   the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.

                  I find him tireless when trying to reach or achieve anything he aims for.  He just pushes past barriers or tries to go around them.

                  Policies ---  I was a Dem from the time I could vote. The past two Dem presidents which I did vote for disappointed me. In 2016 I felt the country was going down the tubes. I voted for an agenda, I wanted someone different, someone, transparent with a business background. I was fully aware of Trump's background in business as well as his personal life. I could care less. I wanted someone to do a job, the job of fixing this America's long-time worsening problems.

                  His tweets at times frustrate me. Many are uncalled for, and again rude and redundant as well as narcissistic. Sometimes I applaud him for fighting back, it just depends on the battle.

                  To sum it up, I voted for an agenda for a man to work on problems that I felt were getting worse, I wanted transparency a president that would fight back and make every attempt to keep his promises.  So, far I got what I voted for.  Has their been mistakes? Yes, but his job performance so far is good.  Hopefully, you will not take offense at my reply, it is honest, and you asked.

          2. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            That is simply not true. Polls in the final 10 days of the election did not predict a landslide.

            They predicted Clinton would win the popular vote by a margin of 3%. She won with a margin of 2%. That's well within a margin of error.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              Odd - I don't recall a single poll that indicated a win, by anyone or by any amount, in the popular vote.  Probably because it doesn't matter, and no one cares, but whatever the reason I did not see a single poll that indicated such a thing.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                No, you are either blocking it or denying it. I have posted the link below to you before as well as to other people.

                Denial is nice until it runs into facts.

                https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epoll … -5952.html

            2. Sharlee01 profile image85
              Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              A more prudent way for me to state my opinion would have been --- The polls were very much in Clinton's favor.

              "Clinton also leads in state polls. If every state voted according to its RCP average, she would win with 297 electoral votes to Trump’s 241, surpassing the needed 270." Real Clear Politics November 07, 2016

              https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic … 32270.html

              This is an article where I originally researched the polls after the 2016 election.  To me at that point pols did appear to have had Hillary winning by a landslide.

              https://www.thewrap.com/every-poll-that … ald-trump/

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                I believe the link to your entire first article supports my point showing a tiny lead for Clinton on election eve.

                Polls aren't perfect. They have a margin of error.

                The second link is an opinion piece that tries to undermine the credibility of national polls.

                1. Sharlee01 profile image85
                  Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes after checking back to the link I saw the results were not landslides. Could have the media influenced my view?  Yes, it most likely did...  LOL

  7. Valeant profile image96
    Valeantposted 4 weeks ago

    https://hubstatic.com/14684989.jpg

  8. TimArends profile image86
    TimArendsposted 4 weeks ago

    The problem with the opening graphic of staff departures is that it doesn’t touch on how this compares with the average presidential administration.  Isn’t such a turnover common? Although, I must admit, I was sorry to see Jeff Sessions forced out.

 
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)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)