How is President Trump Destroying America?

1. 86

   RJ Schwartzposted 5 years ago

   Every day another news story hits the cycle about how President Trump is doing terrible damage to America and hurting the American citizens.  The Economy is better than it's been in 50 years, unemployment is low, the Stock Market high, and the number of drone strikes & military interventions have been few and far between.  He's attempting to make peace with nations rather than bomb them & he's donating his salary to charity. 
   
   So, what has Trump done (that no other President had previously done) that is so bad?  Pick any topic, but be realistic and provide facts if possible - if you have an opinion, please share it, but understand that someone else will probably disagree with your opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Carolyn M Fieldsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You'll get no argument from me. I predict that others might mention climate change, and that he's not doing enough.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         This is comical.  Not a single paragraph has more than a mere smattering of truth in it, and if it has even that it is spun so badly that it is no longer recognizable as truth at all.
         
         For instance, the reference to poverty: "We wonder at the 51% poverty level in America."  It is simply not possible that the bottom 20% of Americans spend more than the average 20% of MOST other industrialized nations and yet half the country is poverty stricken.  To anyone familiar with basic arithmetic the fallacy is immediately obvious.
         
         https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 … r-nations/
         
         Or we can look at: "The European Union  has the greatest economy in the world.".  In round figures, the EU GDP was about 17T in 2017, while the US was over 20T.  In addition, the EU has about half again the people to spread that lower GDP around...this does not seem to indicate that the EU has the "greatest economy in the world". 
         
         You really, really, need to investigate your "information" a little better before you present these wild stories as factual.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         RJ Schwartzposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Implying America isn't a "first world nation" seems quite comical when people enjoy more overall freedoms in the USA versus any other nation on the planet.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Or when it has the highest standard of living in the world.  Or gives more in charity than any other country.

            replyreport
      3. 68

         Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         That was accomplished quite nicely by Bush Jr. followed by Obama.  Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.
         
         
         
         If this is true, then Clinton reaped what Reagan sewed, and Bush Jr. reaped what Clinton sewed. Clinton had it great, and Bush got hammered with the worst recession in lining memory... darned Clintons are always ruining things.
         
         
         
         That is an opinion not supported by reality.  Wages are up for the first time in decades.  People's ability to insist upon better wages and better coverage hasn't been this good since the 80s.
         
         
         
         The EU is doing a fine job committing its own suicide, any self-loathing entity like that no one should be friends with.  Its time America stops coddling them, paying for their military needs, and allowing them to rape America in trade agreements.  In short, to hell with the EU and its idiotic politics.
         
         
         
         Hah, what twisted logic, we don't need bases if we aren't protecting the region.  When America walks away, the EU will be taking its orders from Russia, or China, or who-ever the EU gets rolled over by first, either economically or by actual tanks.
         
         The EU deserves to be left to its fate, obviously they are clueless if they think they can maintain their way of life without the protection and support of the U.S.
         
         
         
         Just pathetic nonsense.  All of it.

         replyreport
   3. 93

      peeplesposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "(that no other President had previously done)"
      In my opinion this is the biggest flaw of your question. Just because another president did something does not make it right for Trump to continue it. Wrong, is wrong, is wrong, no matter who is doing an action.
      
      " the number of drone strikes & military interventions have been few and far between"
      Have you done the research on this one? I feel like you haven't. In Trump's first year as president he approved 127 drone strikes in Yemen alone. 52 in Somalia, just in 2019. On top of that, Trump rolled back a transparency rule that required reporting of civilian casualties when we randomly drone attack a country.
      
      The economy is doing good in some ways, great. However this isn't something new like people are pretending it is. Head over to statistadotcom (non bias statistics based site) and check out their quarterly growth of the real GDP chart. You'll see that it's actually lower than many years past. There's actually multiple graphs on the economy that show this isn't some new amazing thing.
      
      Antisemitism attacks have almost doubled under Trump's presidency. And before you say it isn't his fault, if it isn't related to him, explain the extreme uptick?
      
      Trump has rolled back or is in the process of rolling back 95 different environmental rules. For example he rolled back the requirement for oil and gas companies to report methane emissions. And I will openly admit, some of these roll backs were needed in order to hand back rights to the states, however some were just a blatant refusal to acknowledge real environmental concerns.
      
      Trump attempts to play both sides of the field when it comes to LGBTQ issues. He supports state tax funded adoption agencies having a right to deny adoption rights to lgbtq couples, leaving a gap in what can be done for children who desperately need homes. Many people will say LGBTQ adopters should just go to different non religious agencies, but down here in the south, that is not always a feasible option.
      
      He's a republican who keeps trying to ban crap. Seriously this one annoys me. He put into place the bump stock ban, and now he is working on a vape ban. My major issue with this is the republican party is suppose to be the party with some sense and says "Bans don't work" because they DON'T! How long before this slides into gun rights, and does this open the door for democrats to be able to say, "well you banned this and this so apparently you think bans work"? While we're on the topic of bans, he just raised the age for tobacco, yet didn't raise the age to vote or go to war. All voluntary things, and there was absolutely no reason to raise the age because remember, bans don't work!
      
      I'll stop here, since this is probably a mile long by now. Let me be clear, if you are going to debate me on any of this, don't bring up Obama, refer to my first paragraph. Wrong is wrong, is wrong. Plus I didn't vote for Obama either. My 401K looks amazing under Trump. He is not all bad, but we can't ignore when he is.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Peeples, not only anti-Semitic attacks but racial attacks in general have increased.  Remember Trump's response to the incidents in Charlottesville.  He stated that there were bad people on "both sides".  Really, it was the white nationalist groups who started the attacks.  People rightfully defended themselves against the assaults of the white nationalist groups who ran amok.

         replyreport
2. 0

   Onusonusposted 5 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 0

         Onusonusposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         If Hillary were in charge everybody would have died.
         

         replyreport
      2. 89

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         You may be correct.  But you left out another facet; when the Americans are needed they won't be there if their bases are closed.  And when the American money dries up and America no longer buys the military for the EU, even what meager forces the EU can muster won't have the equipment they need.  And EU members will die as a result.
         
         Difference between short term thinkers and long term thinkers.

         replyreport
3. 77

   Carolyn M Fieldsposted 5 years ago

   "People need two or three jobs to survive. This isn't worth boasting about."
   
   This statement is factually incorrect - based on multiple sources.
   
   "Over the course of the Great Recession, 5.2 percent of the population held multiple jobs, during which the official unemployment rate jumped to 9.3 percent. Since then, the multiple job-holding rate has continually declined. As of 2017, it was 4.9 percent."
   I don't think 4.9 supports that assertion that people "NEED" two OR THREE jobs to survive.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      GDPR Deleted
      1. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Exactly Tess, more people nowadays are working TWO jobs because the jobs being created are lower wage, service end jobs.  Everything is becoming so computerized that even white collar jobs are being phased out.  The middle class is shrinking, even the solidly middle class are worried about their jobs/careers & their children's socioeconomic futures.
         
         With postmodern computerization, those who have advanced & computerized skills & specialization will socioeconomically thrive while those who don't have the prerequisite computer & technical skills will become the new poor. Many that are middle class will be the new poor in the future because they don't possess the needed skills.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            TessSchlesingerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            GDPR Deleted
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I watch documentaries.  Read books about the state of America.  Talk to people who are experiencing difficulties & working TWO jobs to make ends meet.   This IS HAPPENING.   Even the solidly middle class is having a difficult time!   Tess, sadly people want to live in their fantastical comfort zone & avoid reality.  Well, one can't escape reality.   An astute person sees the homelessness, the hopelessness-particularly of young people, & those drowning socioeconomically every day.  To hell with tabloids & celebrity mish mash- this is total refuse which I am not interested in.  Well, one can say that the average American mind is in fantasy mode.  In the Great Depression in the 1930s, feel good, fantastical movies were manufactured to keep many American's minds off their dismal condition- same thing at the present time.

               replyreport
         2. 77

            Carolyn M Fieldsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamath … 495544a568
            
            Forbes is neither a tabloid nor a celebrity magazine.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               I KNOW THAT- I READ FORBES.

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  Carolyn M Fieldsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Apparently you didn't read this article:
                  
                  Are Most People Actually Working Two Or Three Jobs? Not Really.
                  Aparna Mathur
                  Aparna MathurContributor
                  Policy
                  I write about income inequality, mobility, labor markets and taxes.
                  
                  
                  
                  Despite the steady positive news in the monthly jobs report, a recent talking point, oft-repeated, is that too many people are holding two or three jobs in order to make ends meet. Rep. Tim Ryan brought this up during the recent Democratic debate arguing that “the economic system…now force(s) us to have two or three jobs just to get by.” In the earlier debate, Senator Kamala Harris suggested that the low unemployment rate is not cause for celebration since for many Americans, this still meant working “two or three jobs” in order to make ends meet.  Similar sentiments were expressed by Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, who during a PBS interview said “Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family.” As several fact-checkers have pointed out, these statements are inaccurate, both because they reflect a poor understanding of how the unemployment rate is measured, and because they exaggerate the phenomenon of multiple jobholding in the US. While it is certainly true that nominal wage growth has been weaker than what a “full-employment” economy suggests, no one doubts the strength of the job recovery and return of full-time employment nearly a decade since the end of the Great Recession. So what is the connection between the rate of multiple jobholding and the unemployment rate? Let’s begin with correcting the notion that a low unemployment rate arises because people are holding two or three jobs.
                  
                  The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) measures the unemployed by counting the number of people who are jobless, available for work, and have actively looked for a job in the prior 4 weeks. This means those working a part-time or full-time job are not counted as unemployed. The same person holding multiple jobs does not bring down the unemployment rate any more than that person holding one part-time or one full-time job does.
                  
                  More importantly, the phenomenon of multiple jobholding itself is not widespread.  As the chart below shows, multiple jobholding has been associated with periods of both high and low unemployment. Over the period for which BLS collects data, multiple jobholding peaked between 1995 and 1996 (6.2 percent of the population), at which point the official unemployment rate (U-3) averaged 5.5 percent. Over the course of the Great Recession, 5.2 percent of the population held multiple jobs, during which the official unemployment rate jumped to 9.3 percent. Since then, the multiple jobholding rate has continually declined. As of 2017, it was 4.9 percent.  Trends also appear uncorrelated with the U-6 rate, which captures involuntary part-time workers (workers who work part-time, but do so for economic reasons and would rather work full-time). Irrespective of the unemployment rate, the long-run multiple jobholding rate is declining.
                  
                  Link Between Multiple Jobholding and Unemployment
                  Link Between Multiple Jobholding and Unemployment
                  
                  Today In: Industry
                  While declines are persistent across different demographics, it is interesting to note that men and women started out with similar rates of multiple jobholding (about 6 percent), but over time, the rate for men has declined faster than for women, leading to a widening gap. In 2017, about 4.6 percent of men had multiple jobs, while 5.3 percent of women did. Similarly, Blacks, have higher multiple jobholding rates than individuals of White, Asian or Hispanic racial and ethnic identity.
                  
                  Furthermore, are people actually working “60, 70, 80” hours per week? The BLS defines full-time workers as those working at least 35 hours per week. Those working 60 or more hours are workers with two full time jobs, a full time and part time job, or two part-time jobs that are nearly full-time. Data show that, among workers with multiple jobs, the vast majority are managing either one full-time job and a secondary part-time job or two part-time jobs. Only a tiny fraction (4 percent) work two full-time jobs. If we extrapolate their average daily work hours to a full week, multiple jobholders work an average of 42.95 hours per five-day workweek, relative to 39.7 hours for single jobholders, though they are also more likely to work on the weekends.

                  replyreport
   2. 83

      gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      People do need two or more jobs to survive these days.  Things are more expensive.  Food is more expensive, rents are becoming expensive, & so are other basic things that people must be.  The only people who don't have to work two or more jobs are the upper middle class & the wealthy.  Even the solidly middle class are finding it harder to make socioeconomic ends meet.
      
      In order to live decently, one has to earn at least $50,000 per year & that is for...…..AN INDIVIDUAL.  Image a family of 4 people surviving on THAT- that is lower income!  Many can't that explains why people have to work TWO or MORE jobs to keep the family afloat!

      replyreport
4. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   I think we would be better advised to listen to people like Yang. Stop pretending one person is the problem and, instead, address the symptoms which caused what we perceive as the problem.
   
   But, oh. I forgot. The liberal mind believes eradication of all diversity of thought will solve the problem. They are already working on that.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Except that Yang is a liberal candidate campaigning as a Democrat, which is the party of liberals, among a diverse field of candidates that includes women and people of color; moderate capitalists and Democratic socialists; young and oid candidates; straight and gay candidates.
      
      So,  where did you get this idea?  "The liberal mind believes eradication of all diversity of thought will solve the problem. They are already working on that."
      
      From what depths did you squirt that little gem? LOL

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Perhaps from liberal colleges that refuse to allow conservative speakers?  You know - the ones that end up with a riot when a conservative speaker is booked (I see where the president of U of Florida is being impeached for booking Trump JR to speak there).
         
         Or maybe she was thinking of the college students that required special counselling and "quiet space" when "Vote Trump" was scrawled in sidewalk chalk rather than their own candidate.
         
         Or possibly she was looking at Antifa (definitely a left wing, liberal group) attacks on conservative protests.
         
         Perhaps from the impeachment fiasco, where conservatives were not allowed to request witnesses that were not expected to toe the liberal line and support the desired conclusion?
         
         Liberals are not known for listening quietly and considering viewpoints from the right, and before you exclaim that Republicans are worse, I will grant you that the right isn't much better.  Some, maybe, but not a lot.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            You do know that free speech means that students have a right to protest a speaker on their camous, that Antifa can demonstrate in the streets as long as they obey the laws (I acknowledge that sometimes they dont), that a student seeking counseling in no way  restricts free speech or "eradicates
            diversity" to quote LtL.
            
            And no, neither side sits quietly and listens to the other.
            
            Can you explain how anything you mentioned here  demonstrates that "the liberal mind believes eradication of all diversity of thought will solve the problem"?
            
            I doubt you'll be able to justify such a stupid statement, but I look forward to seeing you try.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Me too!

               replyreport
      2. 83

         gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         Oh boy, OH BOY Pretty Panther, this New Year has STARTED.  Let's sip some wine, Pretty Panther...…& enjoy this show...….( I am thinking about STONED SOUL PICNIC-this song comes to mind here).

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Hi Grace. We started the new year with a Rose Bowl party at our house. Wine was available but Maker's Mark was most popular. It was an excellent day, as my Oregon Ducks beat Wisconsin 28-27 and my family and friends all had a good time.
            
            I haven't heard or thought about "Stoned Soul Picnic" for years. The 5th Dimension, right?
            
            Hope you have a wonderful year, Grace!
            
            Sandy

            replyreport
            1. 83

               gmwilliamsposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               You too.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Loved 5th Dimension! "Hurry down, to a Stoned cold Picnic.."

               replyreport
5. 61

   Live to Learnposted 5 years ago

   The left does, then blames the right for it. People aren't stupid, but the left do appear to be sheep in a coma.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Randy Godwinposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      The left isn't being brainwashed like the Trump supporters though. I've never witnessed such loyalty to a scum bag from the right in my lifetime.

      replyreport