The Former Trump Presidency Thread

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:57 am

Max Peck wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:49 am I would pay good money to rig Time's Person of the Year to be Robert Mueller. Just for the troll lulz.

He'll be a shoe-in next year, after the dynamite goes boom.

Max Peck · Post by **Max Peck** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:26 am

Kraken wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:57 am
Max Peck wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:49 am I would pay good money to rig Time's Person of the Year to be Robert Mueller. Just for the troll lulz.
He'll be a shoe-in next year, after the dynamite goes boom.

One way or the other. Disappointing almost an entire planet would be the other way to be Person of the Year.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:53 am

Guys, be nice. This is really important to him.

(Didn't he have a fake TIme Man of the Year cover worked up and framed at his golf resorts?)

tgb · Post by **tgb** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:52 am

Max Peck wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:49 am I would pay good money to rig Time's Person of the Year to be Robert Mueller. Just for the troll lulz.

I like the cut of your jib.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 12:08 pm

Holman wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:37 pm
Scoop20906 wrote: Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:10 pm Donny is the world’s biggest troll. Once more are discussing something so meaningless. Even if it were true I could care either way why he lies so brazenly we are all talking about him. This must be his entire goal. Troll the f-ing world.
The rubes buy it, and they think TIME is lying.

After all, who are you gonna believe? The Man of the Year or some liberal magazine?

It’s just another push on the “dishonest media” flywheel. Trumpsters all believe him and immediately assume Time is lying, which gives them even more reason to discount any reporting that comes from Time magazine in the future. Especially if that reporting is negative towards Dear Leader.

Meanwhile, those of us back in the real world already know he lies about everything, so there’s really no downside.

Sadly, lying like this about something easily disprovable is a win-win for him with absolutely zero risk. Which doesn’t bode well for our future.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm

For many years, while Trump was still choosing fake apprentices on a TV show and Moore was still wandering in front of Hot Topic and Forever 21 at the local mall, the media—and by that I mean the major networks, most major newspapers and cable news programs outside of Fox—has displayed a vexing double standard against conservatives. Those in the media unwilling to even see that as a possibility—and I’m sure there are many—are hopelessly lost to their own biases.

Remember all of the hostile press conferences and exchanges that Washington reporters routinely had with the Obama White House, or when Obama’s daily utterances were challenged every day on CNN? Conservatives don’t. Although Obama veterans surely see it differently, the press corps offered largely favorable coverage of the Obama years—at least when compared to Republican administrations. Plenty of surveys bare that out. Such as this one. And this one. And articles such as this one. And this one—this one, too. Conservatives do remember, however, the endless attacks on Reagan’s mental abilities, on George H. W. Bush’s alleged out-of-touch elitism, and on his son’s various verbal miscues and alleged racial insensitivity.

And then there’s the media’s constant and well known distrust of Republican motives. While the bungled rollout of Obamacare, and its website glitches, did get its fair share of negative coverage back in the day, few if any prominent mainstream journalists ever doubted the president’s intentions or his commitment to helping improve the lives of his fellow Americans. Can the same be said of coverage of Reagan’s welfare reform program or George W. Bush’s effort to respond to Hurricane Katrina or the Republican Congress’ current tax cut plan? Conservatives certainly don’t think so.

Were there long, online trackers of Obama’s every “lie” or misstatement as there are of the current Republican president’s? Of course not. Trump is unarguably a special case when it comes to bending the truth, but all presidents stretch the truth from time to time—Obama included. As CNN’s own Jake Tapper recently noted, “President Obama said things that weren’t true and got away with it more for a variety of reasons, and one is the media was much more supportive of him.” I’m not by any means a defender of Trump, but it’s hard to argue the media is attempting to offer any semblance of balance in the light of studies, such as Harvard’s, that showed 93 percent of Trump’s media coverage has been negative.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... dia-215863

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:10 pm

Then bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:16 pm

Rip wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm Remember all of the hostile press conferences and exchanges that Washington reporters routinely had with the Obama White House, or when Obama’s daily utterances were challenged every day on CNN? Conservatives don’t. Although Obama veterans surely see it differently, the press corps offered largely favorable coverage of the Obama years—at least when compared to Republican administrations. Plenty of surveys bare that out. Such as this one. And this one. And articles such as this one. And this one—this one, too. Conservatives do remember, however, the endless attacks on Reagan’s mental abilities, on George H. W. Bush’s alleged out-of-touch elitism, and on his son’s various verbal miscues and alleged racial insensitivity.

Yes, the media absolutely has a liberal bias. Anyone disputing that is an idiot. However, when this administration lies through their teeth about easily disprovable things every. single. day. and expects us to accept it as truth? All while trying to defend things like racism and xenophopia as everyday norms? Fuck that noise...they deserve every bit of hostility they get.

And then there’s the media’s constant and well known distrust of Republican motives. While the bungled rollout of Obamacare, and its website glitches, did get its fair share of negative coverage back in the day, few if any prominent mainstream journalists ever doubted the president’s intentions or his commitment to helping improve the lives of his fellow Americans. Can the same be said of coverage of Reagan’s welfare reform program or George W. Bush’s effort to respond to Hurricane Katrina or the Republican Congress’ current tax cut plan? Conservatives certainly don’t think so.

My distrust of Republican motives has nothing to do with "the media". It comes from every policy proposal having "FUCK THE POOR AND/OR MINORITIES" in flashing neon on the title page.

Were there long, online trackers of Obama’s every “lie” or misstatement as there are of the current Republican president’s? Of course not. Trump is unarguably a special case when it comes to bending the truth, but all presidents stretch the truth from time to time—Obama included. As CNN’s own Jake Tapper recently noted, “President Obama said things that weren’t true and got away with it more for a variety of reasons, and one is the media was much more supportive of him.” I’m not by any means a defender of Trump, but it’s hard to argue the media is attempting to offer any semblance of balance in the light of studies, such as Harvard’s, that showed 93 percent of Trump’s media coverage has been negative.

[/quote]

Is this chicken or egg? Maybe if Trump didn't spend every waking hour telling lie after lie and being a generally horrible human being, then maybe - just maybe - he'd get something other than negative press coverage. Crazy, I know.

RunningMn9 · Post by **RunningMn9** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:31 pm

Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, just maybe the coverage of Republican Administrations is negative, and yet still accurate. Because Republican Administrations have been doing the sorts of things that deserve negative coverage?

In other words, if the press covered Obama favorably, and Bush or Trump unfavorably, perhaps it’s because the things that Bush and Trump are doing deserve negative coverage.

In even other words, Trump is a piece of shit. And so coverage of Trump is necessarily going to be negative. Because that’s what happens when you’re a piece of shit and you spend your days acting like a cartoon villain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:58 pm

Don't forget Reagan.

Yea, I know one evil empire after another.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:58 pm

RunningMn9 wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:31 pm Maybe, and I’m just spitballing here, just maybe the coverage of Republican Administrations is negative, and yet still accurate. Because Republican Administrations have been doing the sorts of things that deserve negative coverage?

In other words, if the press covered Obama favorably, and Bush or Trump unfavorably, perhaps it’s because the things that Bush and Trump are doing deserve negative coverage.

In even other words, Trump is a piece of shit. And so coverage of Trump is necessarily going to be negative. Because that’s what happens when you’re a piece of shit and you spend your days acting like a cartoon villain.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

When all of your policies are designed to solely benefit 1% of the population at the expense of literally everyone else, then guess what? You’re not going to get much positive coverage for those policies and how you go about implementing them. Shocking, I know.

The reason you didn’t hear as much (outside of the derp-o-sphere, which made plenty of noise) about how awful the Obamacare rollout was is because, flawed as it was, it actually helped a whole lot of people. Go ahead and point to one - just one - of Trump’s proposals that will do the same.

GreenGoo · Post by **GreenGoo** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 4:17 pm

Rip wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:58 pm Don't forget Reagan.

Yea, I know one evil empire after another.

Reagan literally gave weapons to America's enemies, which had been made illegal through Congress, in the hopes of maybe getting some hostages back if they reacted favourably to the gifts.

I don't know why Reagan is held in such high regard. Rose coloured glasses, I'm thinking.

Combustible Lemur · Post by **Combustible Lemur** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 5:55 pm

GreenGoo wrote:
Rip wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 3:58 pm Don't forget Reagan.

Yea, I know one evil empire after another.

Reagan literally gave weapons to America's enemies, which had been made illegal through Congress, in the hopes of maybe getting some hostages back if they reacted favourably to the gifts.

I don't know why Reagan is held in such high regard. Rose coloured glasses, I'm thinking.

Also isn't it pretty established that Reagan's Alzheimer's had to have started by the time he left office? So concerns about his mental health wouldn't be negative coverage, but simple fact based concern.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

YellowKing · Post by **YellowKing** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 6:49 pm

The media practically got Trump elected. He got way more coverage than every other candidate. And the media's breathless reporting of every Hillary "email" utterance pretty much torpedoed her poll numbers at the time.

And let's not forget the years of them covering the Bill Clinton scandal. It's not like they swept that under the rug.

Trump's a fucking liar and a psychopath,and he's being covered like one. If anything, I think the media is being TOO gentle.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:29 pm

Depends on what media you consider "the media." WaPo and to a somewhat lesser extent the NYT are openly anti-Trump ("Democracy Dies In Darkness"...turns out it also dies in broad daylight). Alt-media like Breitbart, the Daily Stormer, and Fox News are openly pro-Trump. Everybody else is somewhere in between. I am hard-pressed to name a major media outlet that still strives for the objectivity that I was taught to revere in j-school.

Wife, as a lifelong working journalist from a family of the same, had a harder time coming to grips with this than I did, especially in the earliest days of this administration. Since then it has become undeniable that it is a matter of survival, of both the free press and our democracy itself. Truth and reality are under daily assault. "Fake news" is a hot topic in her graduate-level classes...it's depressing how few of her students understand what that means or can recognize it when they see it, and you can thank our president for that.

Even as the media struggles to openly fight lies with truth, it's still hard to abandon fairness and objectivity when you've lived by those ideals your whole professional life. Especially when truth is losing.

Rip · Post by **Rip** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:44 pm

Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:44 pm

Rip wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm
For many years, while Trump was still choosing fake apprentices on a TV show and Moore was still wandering in front of Hot Topic and Forever 21 at the local mall, the media—and by that I mean the major networks, most major newspapers and cable news programs outside of Fox—has displayed a vexing double standard against conservatives. Those in the media unwilling to even see that as a possibility—and I’m sure there are many—are hopelessly lost to their own biases.

Remember all of the hostile press conferences and exchanges that Washington reporters routinely had with the Obama White House, or when Obama’s daily utterances were challenged every day on CNN? Conservatives don’t. Although Obama veterans surely see it differently, the press corps offered largely favorable coverage of the Obama years—at least when compared to Republican administrations. Plenty of surveys bare that out. Such as this one. And this one. And articles such as this one. And this one—this one, too. Conservatives do remember, however, the endless attacks on Reagan’s mental abilities, on George H. W. Bush’s alleged out-of-touch elitism, and on his son’s various verbal miscues and alleged racial insensitivity.

[...]
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... dia-215863

This is rankest Whataboutism.

Obama was reasonably called out for extravagant claims when they occurred. Trump gets the same treatment when mere policy is the issue--if anything, he gets an easy ride because his extravagant obnoxiousness takes up most of the journalistic oxygen.

The difference in coverage derives from the fact that while Obama was dignified and presidential, Trump is a shitshow dumpster fire of petty grievances, personal attacks, blatant falsehoods, and plausible evidence of graft and treason.

Rip, your post is worthless without concrete comparisons. Put up or shut up.

Captain Caveman · Post by **Captain Caveman** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:54 pm

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status ... 7686252546
The degree of gaslighting here is absolutely galling.

geezer · Post by **geezer** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:08 pm

Kraken wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:29 pm Depends on what media you consider "the media." WaPo and to a somewhat lesser extent the NYT are openly anti-Trump ("Democracy Dies In Darkness"...turns out it also dies in broad daylight). Alt-media like Breitbart, the Daily Stormer, and Fox News are openly pro-Trump. Everybody else is somewhere in between. I am hard-pressed to name a major media outlet that still strives for the objectivity that I was taught to revere in j-school.

Hold on now.. WaPo is NOT the leftist equivalent of Breitbart or the Daily Stormer.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:16 pm

Captain Caveman wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:54 pm The degree of gaslighting here is absolutely galling.

The essence of clinical narcissism is gaslighting yourself.

Everyone who has known Trump prior to his administration attests to his willingness to lie for the pettiest gain. He'll insist on anything that makes him look good; he'll deny anything that criticizes him, even when the evidence is undeniable.

The stupid claim about TIME magazine is just the latest example. "I was contacted about being Man of the Year but turned it down" would have had a chance in the business meetings and celebrity interviews and power lunches of the 1970s-1990s, but in the internet age (when TIME itself can prove the claim is nonsense) it just reveals Trump's absurd, neurotic narcissism and dishonesty.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:42 pm

https://twitter.com/Noahsyndergaard/sta ... 1100050432

Noah Syndergaard

"Sports Illustrated called and said I was probably going to be Sportsman of the Year, but it was going to take a long photo shoot and interview. I’m not proud of my recent perm and have a interpretive dance class at the interview time so I turned it down! No Thanks SI!!"

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:51 pm

Noah Seth Syndergaard, nicknamed Thor, is an American professional baseball pitcher for the New York Mets of Major League Baseball. Syndergaard made his MLB debut on May 12, 2015.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:39 pm

geezer wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:08 pm
Kraken wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:29 pm Depends on what media you consider "the media." WaPo and to a somewhat lesser extent the NYT are openly anti-Trump ("Democracy Dies In Darkness"...turns out it also dies in broad daylight). Alt-media like Breitbart, the Daily Stormer, and Fox News are openly pro-Trump. Everybody else is somewhere in between. I am hard-pressed to name a major media outlet that still strives for the objectivity that I was taught to revere in j-school.

Hold on now.. WaPo is NOT the leftist equivalent of Breitbart or the Daily Stormer.

I didn't mean to imply that, only that they are opposite ends of a spectrum. I have great respect for WaPo's diligence. If there is a left-wing Breitbart, it's beyond my ken. The leftiest site I know is Wonkette, and that doesn't pretend to be news.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:46 pm

Here's Trump's idea of journalism in all its glory:

Just a few hours before being endorsed by Trump, MagaPill posted a video from Liz Cronkin, a fringe figure best known for pushing the Pizzagate conspiracy. In the video, Cronkin claims there is a sex tape of Hillary Clinton with an underage girl on Anthony Weiner’s laptop.

Another recent MagaPill post features an “interesting flow chart” which combines nearly every conspiracy theory imaginable: “false flag terrorism,” “organ harvesting,” “child/human sacrifice,” “weaponize forced vaccination,” “earthquake machines.”

The MagaPill account also has embraced conspiracy theories related to the October mass shooting in Las Vegas, posting links to InfoWars and suggesting there is a cover up.

We're at the point where the president's only defense would be to admit that he's too stupid to know what he's talking about.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:23 pm

Every time I see a photo of el dipshit with those raccoon like eye sockets, I have to laugh out loud. He’s like a lazy clown who just doesn’t want to fully commit to the makeup.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:18 am

Speaking of representing our nation to the world poorly...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 7596986368

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 12:34 am

The stupid claim about TIME magazine is just the latest example. "I was contacted about being Man of the Year but turned it down" would have had a chance in the business meetings and celebrity interviews and power lunches of the 1970s-1990s, but in the internet age (when TIME itself can prove the claim is nonsense) it just reveals Trump's absurd, neurotic narcissism and dishonesty.

And thats not even the bad part...that part is that 90% of his fans will believe him over facts.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:53 am

Not sure if this is official CNN, but ohsnap.gif

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CNNPR/status/934559 ... 32290?s=17[/tweet]

It's not CNN's job to represent the U.S to the world. That's yours. Our job is to report the news. #FactsFirst

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 1:53 am

Rip wrote: Sat Nov 25, 2017 2:26 pm
For many years, while Trump was still choosing fake apprentices on a TV show and Moore was still wandering in front of Hot Topic and Forever 21 at the local mall, the media—and by that I mean the major networks, most major newspapers and cable news programs outside of Fox—has displayed a vexing double standard against conservatives. Those in the media unwilling to even see that as a possibility—and I’m sure there are many—are hopelessly lost to their own biases.

Remember all of the hostile press conferences and exchanges that Washington reporters routinely had with the Obama White House, or when Obama’s daily utterances were challenged every day on CNN? Conservatives don’t. Although Obama veterans surely see it differently, the press corps offered largely favorable coverage of the Obama years—at least when compared to Republican administrations. Plenty of surveys bare that out. Such as this one. And this one. And articles such as this one. And this one—this one, too. Conservatives do remember, however, the endless attacks on Reagan’s mental abilities, on George H. W. Bush’s alleged out-of-touch elitism, and on his son’s various verbal miscues and alleged racial insensitivity.

And then there’s the media’s constant and well known distrust of Republican motives. While the bungled rollout of Obamacare, and its website glitches, did get its fair share of negative coverage back in the day, few if any prominent mainstream journalists ever doubted the president’s intentions or his commitment to helping improve the lives of his fellow Americans. Can the same be said of coverage of Reagan’s welfare reform program or George W. Bush’s effort to respond to Hurricane Katrina or the Republican Congress’ current tax cut plan? Conservatives certainly don’t think so.

Were there long, online trackers of Obama’s every “lie” or misstatement as there are of the current Republican president’s? Of course not. Trump is unarguably a special case when it comes to bending the truth, but all presidents stretch the truth from time to time—Obama included. As CNN’s own Jake Tapper recently noted, “President Obama said things that weren’t true and got away with it more for a variety of reasons, and one is the media was much more supportive of him.” I’m not by any means a defender of Trump, but it’s hard to argue the media is attempting to offer any semblance of balance in the light of studies, such as Harvard’s, that showed 93 percent of Trump’s media coverage has been negative.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... dia-215863

Selective memory snowflake.

Pyperkub · Post by **Pyperkub** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 4:10 am

Rip wrote:
For many years, while Trump was still choosing fake apprentices on a TV show and Moore was still wandering in front of Hot Topic and Forever 21 at the local mall, the media—and by that I mean the major networks, most major newspapers and cable news programs outside of Fox—has displayed a vexing double standard against conservatives. Those in the media unwilling to even see that as a possibility—and I’m sure there are many—are hopelessly lost to their own biases.

Remember all of the hostile press conferences and exchanges that Washington reporters routinely had with the Obama White House, or when Obama’s daily utterances were challenged every day on CNN? Conservatives don’t. Although Obama veterans surely see it differently, the press corps offered largely favorable coverage of the Obama years—at least when compared to Republican administrations. Plenty of surveys bare that out. Such as this one. And this one. And articles such as this one. And this one—this one, too. Conservatives do remember, however, the endless attacks on Reagan’s mental abilities, on George H. W. Bush’s alleged out-of-touch elitism, and on his son’s various verbal miscues and alleged racial insensitivity.

And then there’s the media’s constant and well known distrust of Republican motives. While the bungled rollout of Obamacare, and its website glitches, did get its fair share of negative coverage back in the day, few if any prominent mainstream journalists ever doubted the president’s intentions or his commitment to helping improve the lives of his fellow Americans. Can the same be said of coverage of Reagan’s welfare reform program or George W. Bush’s effort to respond to Hurricane Katrina or the Republican Congress’ current tax cut plan? Conservatives certainly don’t think so.

Were there long, online trackers of Obama’s every “lie” or misstatement as there are of the current Republican president’s? Of course not. Trump is unarguably a special case when it comes to bending the truth, but all presidents stretch the truth from time to time—Obama included. As CNN’s own Jake Tapper recently noted, “President Obama said things that weren’t true and got away with it more for a variety of reasons, and one is the media was much more supportive of him.” I’m not by any means a defender of Trump, but it’s hard to argue the media is attempting to offer any semblance of balance in the light of studies, such as Harvard’s, that showed 93 percent of Trump’s media coverage has been negative.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... dia-215863

What a trash article. Fox news were and are the biggest hypocrites here, and were the number one cable news outfit for all of the Obama presidency, despite their misinformation and lies.

The problem is that conservatives prefer ideology to facts.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:49 pm

Mueller news incoming?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 9539586054

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:00 pm

I have a few extremely outspoken conservative friends on FB who have been trumpeting the same thing. Great economy, great unemployment rate, all Trump's doing, etc. So I asked them a very simple question: Could you let me know which Trump policies you think are having the greatest effect on sustaining these positive indicators? Complete crickets from all of them, as expected.

Actually, I take that back. One said that he didn't know, but is sure "everything would have been far worse under Hillary". Again, entirely as expected.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:04 pm

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:26 pm

In Soviet Russia, election wins you!

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:13 pm

The Republicans, and by association Trump, can take responsibility for the economy after they pass a budget and/or tax plan. Until then we're still coasting on the policies of Obama and the previous Congress. If Trump wants to take credit for leaving well enough alone, he can do that. What a genius!

The financial markets like Trump and the R tax policy; the top 20% of Americans who hold 92% of all stocks are doing just fine. The stock market, however, is not the economy. Get back to me after they sabotage the ACA, end net neutrality, and raise taxes on the middle class.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 7:26 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2017 6:00 pm I have a few extremely outspoken conservative friends on FB who have been trumpeting the same thing. Great economy, great unemployment rate, all Trump's doing, etc. So I asked them a very simple question: Could you let me know which Trump policies you think are having the greatest effect on sustaining these positive indicators? Complete crickets from all of them, as expected.

Actually, I take that back. One said that he didn't know, but is sure "everything would have been far worse under Hillary". Again, entirely as expected.

Of course conservatives believe that the economy was failing under Obama (because Fox and Trump told them so), so *any* news of a good economy hits them as confirmation that Trump has turned things around.

All the charts are the same: the positive Obama-era trends continue. We're still coasting on when we had a government, largely because Republicans are so broken that they haven't yet been able to implement their fucked-up renovations.

It won't last.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:33 pm

I agree - especially after the financial sector is unshackled again. Those assholes actually developed a pathos within the community that honestly believes that *they* were the victim of the financial crisis. That said, some institutions likely learned much from the crisis but these institutions are pretty impossible to manage at their size. Even with some prodding and oversight Wells Fargo happened. Excess risk just tends to seep in. Additionally they have a tendency to herd and chase the same bubbles. I wonder if they'll blow up the financial world again in a decade if let off the chain.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 8:47 pm

So much fun

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:00 pm

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Sun Nov 26, 2017 9:07 pm