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.
You'll get no argument from me. I predict that others might mention climate change, and that he's not doing enough.
1. Destabilized the rest of the world. I guess if you're only focused on America, you don't see how America is destablizing everywhere else.
2. Making a complete laughing stock of America with his ignorance, illiteracy, and stupidity. Perhaps that doesn't matter to Americans.
3. It takes a decade for the policies of a president to show its fruit. It's always the president after the previous one that reaps what the previous president has done. Trump is reaping what Obama sewed. The president following Trump will inherit a terrible economy.
4. While jobs may be up, salaries and wages are down. People need two or three jobs to survive. This isn't worth boasting about.
5. Oh, yes. And climate change. Of course, the orange nitwit has convinced his uninformed followers that it's all a ploy. The fact that the entire rest of the world and 97% of climate scientists indicate that it's not is besides the point. If nothing else, America has lost the respect of the rest of the world.
6. America has no more friends. The European Union has the greatest economy in the world. https://europa.eu/european-union/about- … economy_en They don't need America. China is producing more and is closer to them. China has also built the Silk Road. So Europe is allying itself with the EU.
7. Yes, Trump is certainly making friends - with the wrong people - Russia and Northern Korea. He is also making enemies - with Western Europe. And China. I think he misunderstands that the world has changed. Elsewhere in the world people are about cooperation for fix up the climate. They don't particularly care about America and her childish wars and need for praise.
8. By insisting that the EU pay its share of military expenses, the current president misses the point. The US is not there to protect the rest of the world. It has simply been given permission to have bases there so that it can mobilize in a hurry. Europe can simply tell America to pack its bags, and then America is left with the fact that it cannot mobilize in a hurry. A few years ago, the UK refused it a base when the Pentagon asked. Gone are the days when America has the influence to tell previous allies what to do. However, you probably don't think that's important.
9. His followers are racist and the increase in racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, etc. is increasing by the day. His followers have become emboldened. They are white nationalists, and those people don't realize that the days of white power are over. It's not about white power. It's about being humans together on a planet for us all. The rest of us in the world see America fast descending into the old USSR. We see pre-war Germany. We wonder at the 51% poverty level in America. We wonder how it is that if Trump was responsible for so many increased jobs, there is so much homelessness and people living from paycheck to paycheck - getting sick and obese from worry.
10.America has returned to the time just before the Great Depression - to the time of the Robber Barons. The stock market is high and the top 1% own about 90% of America. The rest are struggling. Those who don't care about the 'losers' think that the fact that the stock market is so high is a wonderful indication of how well things are going. I guess it depends on one's value system.
I am, of course, not American. I lived there for 11 years. Very hard country to live in. I found a lack of freedom, too much ignorance, and a terrible lack of civil rights. Of course, I realize that most Americans don't realize this because they have never lived in a first world country. Nothing I can do about that. So bite my head of.
But you asked. So I said...
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.
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.
And you have lived and worked in how many countries? Not counting the American military, of course, because you are not under the laws of other countries.
I have lived and worked in six countries on three continents and visited many more countries on four continents.
I have South African nationality, German nationality, an American social security number (green card), and a British National Insurance number. I've been around.
I think I know what freedom is.
America is the least free country that I have ever lived in. You have no idea. You've just been brainwashed to believe that.
As for it being a first world country, let me define first world for you.
1. First world countries have extensive public transport so that everybody, no matter where they live, can go anywhere, at the drop of a hat.
2. People who live in first world countries have free or very cheap medical services.
3. People who live in first world countries have extremely generous welfare programs. If you lose your job or you are injured or something else happens, you are looked after.
4. People who work in first world countries get between 4 and 6 weeks paid leave every year by law. They get an additional 3 to 6 weeks paid sick leave by law.
5. You cannot fire someone in a first world country without a very good reason. People are protected.
6.Technology is far more advanced in Europe than in America. I was truly shocked when I first arrived in the States and found that they weren't using certain technology.
7. First world countries tend to have free education. You can go to university free in Germany and in Holland and various other countries. If you need to retrain, you get an allowance from the State, and you go back to school.
In terms of measuring how free the USA is, it is number 15 - not number 1.
https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation … 18381.html
Or when it has the highest standard of living in the world. Or gives more in charity than any other country.
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.
"(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.
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.
Indeed. And when Europe sets up its own forces, and America wants to mobilize, it won't be able to mobilize as quickly because it won't have so many international bases. Difference between short term thinkers and long term thinkers.
If Hillary were in charge everybody would have died.
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.
"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.
And by how much do you think unemployment 'declined?'under Trump?
Adding another badly paid job so that people can barely survive is not indicative of improving a job market - just increased wage slavery.
If the unemployed generally number about 4%, and if that is the number people are concerned about, then5% is an incredibly large percentage of people to hold down two or three jobs in order to survive.
Walmart used to have a page showing its full time workers how to budget - on two jobs!
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.
The difficulty is that most many people aren't interested in reading anything beyond the tabloids and celebrity magazines. They thus miss what is really going on.
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.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamath … 495544a568
Forbes is neither a tabloid nor a celebrity magazine.
Apparently you didn't read this article:
Are Most People Actually Working Two Or Three Jobs? Not Really.
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.
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!
An empty threat? America is seen as the greatest threat to world Peace by everybody out there - except Americans.
The EU was created with the idea that if everybody was reading, they wouldn't go to eat with each other. The idea has been a great success.
Next war? Between China and America? The Pentagon admits China could win. Give it a few more years,and China will win.
Europe will not be part of it. Nor will Africa. Perhaps Australia will Ally with the US.
The world is changing.
Outside of America, people are more concerned with climate change which will bring extinction to humanity than with making America great again.
People are more concerned with a quality of life which will exclude socioeconomic poverty. People want a HUMANE, HIGH STANDARD of living which is ethical. People are becoming sick of war & corruption. It is sickening that the quality of American life for many Americans have decreased. Middle class people are becoming homeless & impoverished. Yes, middle class people are sleeping in cars because they can't afford apartments nor houses. This is beyond deplorable. People are going hungry in the richest nation on earth. Again, this is deplorable. There should be no poor nor impoverished people in America. The minimum living standard in America should be at a comfortable, middle class level.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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!
The left does, then blames the right for it. People aren't stupid, but the left do appear to be sheep in a coma.
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
Donald Trump has been President for 14 days now. In that time he has issued around 14 executive orders, most of which impact the world.The American polls show over 50% of America think Trump is doing a poor jobs.What is your opinion?
by Marcy Goodfleisch 5 years ago
How can Trump show American he is "President for Everyone"?What can Trump do to reverse the concerns some have that he is not on their side or doesn't care about them?
by Allen Donald 2 years ago
The November jobs numbers came out and are very strong.There is a simple historical fact at play here: Presidents get credit when the economy is strong and blame when it is weak. As much as conservatives may hate it, many saw Obama succeeding in this way and that's why he won a second term. The...
by Scott Belford 4 years ago
This is really two part question. The first part is the above question. The other is a slight twist, to wit: "Is President Trump Turning Out to an Existential Threat to Ideals Which America Represents?"The reason I ask is because consequences are becoming evident from his nine...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Has President Trump's sociopolitical policies & stance united or divided the United States among racial, gender, & socioeconomic lies? Has President Trump create a rise of overt racism in the United States regarding his immigration policies? What image is President Trump...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
Was the racial climate in America better under President Obama or is it better under President Trump? Is President Trump responsible for the overt escalation of racism in America?
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|