Can Trump Fill Obama's Shoes?

record jobs growth is not a negative no matter how much you lie about it

- - - Updated - - -

link please

 

Yes no one wants to be seen as a racist for not liking our first black president , especially when he is leaving and we dont have to put up with him anymore

 

SIX years ago? Hell...try 38 years ago!

The Labor Force Participation Rate is at only 62.8%!!!

The last time it was that low (besides September 2015 when it was at 62.4%) was in March of 1978!

The "unemployment rate" is a completely fictitious figure used by ALL politicians that does NOT factor in actual numbers of people unemployed.

It's just a "smoke & mirrors" figure computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is an arm of the Federal Government. It makes whomever is in office look as good as it possibly can - PERIOD!

 

Im talking total number of people employed which is supposed to go up like the population does not down

 

Gotcha. I'm just saying that raw numbers don't tell the whole story.

"We good!"

 

For sure I was going to include those who dropped out and no longer participate being at near all time highs

 

That remains to be seen. But a almost ever president as he nears the end of his presidency improves his approval rating. One has to remember Obama spent quite a bit of his presidency in the middle Forties. G.W. Bush's average approval 48.0% for his 8 years although his final approval rating was 34%. That 34% represented a climb of 3 points from November to January when he left office.

Bill Clinton average for his 8 years was 52.7% and he finished at 65% when he left office, a rise of 8 points from November to January when he left office. G.H.W. Bush or Bush the elder averaged 53.3% over his four years, ending at 56% on January 20th. Bush the elder rose an incredible 22 points from November to January when he left office, from 34 to 56%. Reagan average 54% approval rating through his 8 years, he ended up at 63%, a rise of 12 points from November to January.

Obama so far has averaged 52% approval rating, he is currently at 57%. Obama has risen 4 points from November 8 to today. Obama's time in office is lower than the other president's I mention other than G.W. Bush or Bush Jr. who finished at 48%. Jimmy Carter averaged 53.3% approval rating for his four years, finishing at a low of 34%. Ford averaged 54.6% and finished at 53%, he rose from 45 to 53 from November to January.

I don't think approval ratings are accurate as to how history looks back on a president. Truman finished with just a 32% approval rating and yet we look back on him as being a near great president. He is ranked 7th on the all time list. Bill Clinton is 20th, G.W.H. Bush or Bush the elder is ranked 22nd, Reagan 17th, Carter 27th, Ford 26th.

Can Trump fill Obama's shoes? Sure he can. The question is will he and how good or bad president will he be? That at this time is pure speculation and coming from Democrats, he will be bad and Republicans say he will be good. Myself, I don't know. I do know I ranked Obama as a below average president that I have personally experienced. Above Carter and Ford, along side of Bush the younger from bottom up. The best president I experience was Eisenhower, followed by JFK with Bill Clinton and Reagan vying for the third spot. But it is all in the eye of the beholder.

 

It's amusing how many innocent folks have been accused of being responsible for some version of this one: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/

The attribution to Adams is clearly anachronistic since the term "liberal" and "conservative" would have had considerably different meanings in his day.

 

Yeah - I had always heard it was Winston Churchill, but there's no actual record of it. So...the earliest account I found was that of John Adams. Maybe true - maybe not.

Regardless of who said it or when...it makes sense - at least to me.

Then again, I'm wired to be a left-brain thinker: you know - logic, reasoning, linear thinking...shortest distance from point A to B, concrete thinking rather than abstract, etc.

That kinda guy. I'm a real weirdo, huh?

Right brain thinkers who think in terms of so much "grey area" and pinging all over the place in "the abstract" just confound guys like me to no end.

But I do understand them, so that gives me some perspective into what makes them tick. (I guess?)

Anyway, I don't NECESSARILY hold it against them; most just can't help it. They're just wired that way.

I know...I know - libs have found scientists who "debunk" the right brain/left brain theory. I've heard all that before.

Then again - there are many, many more who swear it's true...and it does explain a lot.

The "creative" types - musicians, artists, actors, etc. who thrive in the abstract naturally tend to be liberal thinkers.

I just wish they could find a way to separate politics from their social liberalism. I am able to do so....I'm actually quite liberal on most social matters.

But the politics of governing a world power - NO WAY!

Conservatism in government means a conservative amount of governmental interference in the lives of its people, as well as a conservative approach to changing things like our Constitution. Conservatism is supposed to afford more real personal liberty and encourage personal responsibility to better your own life without depending on an ever-growing central federal government to do it for you!

Liberalism means the government is more involved and, therefore, government is the one who has the liberty to interfere in citizens' lives. However, large, over-reaching governments are NOT good at solving individual problems of individual people. They take a "one size fits all" approach, which ends up in policies of taking from one to appease the other.

You cannot elevate one by bringing down the other!

That's NOT personal liberty; that is tyranny.

 

There are many metrics by which one can assign relative merit to presidents, but I give significance to the public's end of term assessment when how the nation has fared during his tenure is fresh and without subsequent revisionism. Obama assumed office when the US was in a very sorry plight economically, and mired in a disastrous military fiasco, both contrived over the Bush/Cheney years, and it is now in far better shape on both scores. He has not been a great president, but vastly superior to his hapless predecessor (despite the crackpot fantasies of birtherism, madrasa indoctrination, hatred of America, etc. by which his legitimacy was constantly challenged - and some of the malcontents are still carping.)

Can the political ingenue Trump do as well? He could surprise the wary, but novelty acts have a tendency to fizzle.

With the unemployment rate having just reached a 43-year low, if he can accelerate rising salaries and avoid contriving pretexts for military invasions, he'll be doing okay, and the fact that over 2 million Americans wanted another president won't matter much.

 

A fact only liberals believe. She may have gotten 2 million more votes but that they were from Americans or even living is in doubt

The unemployment rate is a farce its really far higher

 

I neglected to address the 20 vs. 40 aspect of the quote.

To me, the fact that the human brain is still growing and developing in the areas necessary for critical cognitive functions means that a younger person tends to be more impulsive and "abstract" in thinking.

They are more likely to bite at that shiny object that goes floating by.

Once they find out there's a hook in it, however...they either learn from it and spit it out...of they don't learn and the hook gets set. CAUGHT!

Once in your 40's, you are expected to have more life experience and are expected to have grown as an individual, taken on adult responsibilities, family life, career, better judgment, etc.

Living in the abstract and being impulsive in your middle age doesn't really work out all that well in terms of stability, personal responsibility, maturity, etc.

Unless you go into a career field where immaturity and impulsive behavior actually ensure that you DO go places and succeed!

Which leads me back to artists, musicians, actors, and the like.

You'll find examples that support both sides of the argument I guess.

Either way...I stand by my quote.

 

When it comes to Trump, I am in the wait and see mode. No judgments until he becomes president. Many has said on this site that he is not an ideologue which they state is one reason he changes his stances on different things. Perhaps that is what we need. Someone who tries something and if it doesn't work, discards it and begins something else. Time will tell.

 

BINGO!

It took me a while to figure Donald Trump out. I never really followed "The Apprentice" since I despise pop culture, but I knew he was a billionaire loudmouth cad who knew how to command attention and who did have political aspirations to some degree.

Once the fact set in that he had no logical reason to want to be president other than his love of his country - then I started getting him.

Political ideologues are pigeon-holed into one way of doing things. They have to toe the party line or they are discarded.

Trump is neither Conservative nor Liberal; neither Republican nor Democrat.

Trump is a pragmatic businessman. He's the kind of guy who sees a problem and wants to fix it - politics be damned!

That kind of guy drives most politicians absolutely bat $#!T CRAZY!

It tends to drive us "keyboard expert politicians" kinda nuts too - unless we are able to figure him out.

That's the key - figuring him out...which ends up being much tougher for liberals than for conservatives.

After all, he ran as a Republican...played the Democrats' game taken from the Alinsky playbook...and expertly impaled them with their own swords!

He played the dims' game and beat them at it. That - more than anything else - is what is deep-down driving them absolutely CRAZY!

Give the guy a chance! We didn't like Obama, but we settled in a gave him the chance.

He failed though. Flat-out failed! A fact that only serves to complicate the logical and necessary step of progressing from the anger stage to the denial stage.

I shudder to think how long it will take for them to reach the acceptance stage.

 

Much is to be said for pragmatism - It's what made FDR such an outstanding president. A slavish ideologue of any persuasion - Exhibit A is presently Sam Brownback - is a virtual guarantee of failure. Why shackle oneself to dogma?

 

FDR that put Americans in concentration camps vs Kansas with a lower unimployment rate than the national average?

 

I never cared for the guy from day one, but he will be the next president. Until he does something dumb, I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Well let's see, Trump isn't black and he can't kill Bin Laden, Obamas two and possibly only significant achievements. So in that regard Trump cannot fill Obama's shoes.

 

Any idiot can fill his stinking shoes.

 

Lol. High tax rates? Tax rates have been much higher. Again. Unrelated.

 

Wrong. A black hooha.

 

Trump doesnt wear clown shoes with curly pointy toes that have tinker bells on them.

 

FDR is one of the worst ever. An ideologue if there ever was one

 

Only a rabid ideologue would consider FDR an ideologue.

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried a number of unprecedented policies, and that some of them failed, should in no way be a measure of failure for the New Deal.

Roosevelt achieved optimization through pragmatism, by acting through mixed strategies. By contrast, the economic straitjacket with which we now deal was in large part a product of ideological application of poorly understood monopoly capitalism -- as obsolete in the 1920's, when it led to the Great Depression, as it was in the past decade of self-indulgent deregulation.

What worked worked, and some ideologues didn't like what worked.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E7D6133FF933A05752C1A96E9C8B63

 

0bama has been an abject failure. I cannot think of a single metric he has improved since being president. Those silly polls you posted are representative of nothing.