- Trump lowered taxes, but the results for most people were mixed and small. Lower and middle class income families saw trivial benefits, if any at all. High income families and corporations saw the most benefit. The argument that the Trump tax cuts were responsible for the the booming economy is weak. The stock market and unemployment rates were already in a good place and trending in the right direction, for years before Trump took office. The entire TCJA law is based on the same old “trickle down economics” story. Corporations and the rich benefit the most, and they do create jobs, but they also take in more profits. They are not likely to sacrifice their own profits to create jobs, so effectively the tax cuts pump up their profits while creating a disproportionate and disappointing amount of high quality jobs.
On top of this, the federal deficit grew significantly. Pre-pandemic as well as post-pandemic.
-
Trump’s trade deals have had pretty mixed results. Hard to say we’re a lot better off, and it’s possible we’re worse off because of them. Moreover, the U.S.'s declining credibility in international relations owes a lot to Trump.
-
Trump was never able to fund his border wall. He added a scant few miles to the wall and has mostly repaired the deteriorating border wall that already existed. He hasn’t built or funded the wall he campaigned on. Mexico certainly did not pay for it. Even Americans who wanted to pay for it and who donated millions to Stephen Bannon’s “We build the wall” fundraiser didn’t pay for it because the fundraiser turned out to be a massive scam for which Bannon and others were indicted.
Trump immigration policy:
[tab]
[/tab]
- Trump did make a point of killing regulations, but this has not been done in an especially thoughtful way and mostly benefits corporations at the expense of the public interest. Did some burdensome and poorly implemented regulations exist? Yes. But a numbers game of restricting outgoing regulation in arbitrary proportion to deregulation, just to be able to point to numbers on paper, is not an especially smart or robust plan. Even those who support massive deregulation and an overhaul of the regulatory system admit that Trump has not accomplished much.
Worst of all, the Trump administration has massively lowered standards for clean air and water, and other environmental safeguards.
- The military was not underfunded when Trump took office. Yes, Trump increased funding relative to Obama’s second term, but this was less than military funding under Obama’s first term.
Trump’s net effect on these specific points has been neutral, at best. I think much worse. He certainly hasn’t done more for the country than any president ever. Did he ever do anything of lasting good, probably. I’ve pointed out a few positive things in the past. But there has been little of great consequence. Probably the greatest success of the Trump administration, in coordination with McConnell’s Republican majority Senate, was packing the courts.
The worst aspects of Trump’s presidency have far outweighed any of the debatable positives. He lies and misinforms the public all the time; he has flouted conflict of interest oversight and tried very hard to extract personal benefit from his office; Americans have less trust in their government than before; the non-partisan, professional civil service core has been gutted and replaced by Trump sycophants and loyalists; U.S. international credibility is at a low; Trump served his personal interests at the expense of his oath of office; he undermined U.S. intelligence and expertise to serve his personal agenda; he’s been a particularly large asset for Putin, but also for other hostile foreign interests; he mislead the public, muzzled our best experts, and failed to lead when a national response was required for the pandemic. He has 215,000+ American deaths on his record. The damage has and will continue to have incalculable and lasting effects, I’ve only touched the surface.
Fuse, I need to go through your evidence and I will but I have a hard time regarding NYT articles as evidence since the MSM represents fake news and erroneous facts.
to a cult member even a failure to lead isnt seen as a failure when its their leader
The MSM is funded by wall street…it is wall street.
If you don’t take it with a gallon of salt, you need to give your head a shake.
I’m not saying the media that’s pro-Trump is 100% either, it’s not as simple as, whatever A or B media says is the truth and nothing but, you’ve got to read in between the lines, think for yourself.
There’s no tangible evidence Trump conspired, or colluded with Russia to steal, or win the election, or they would’ve found it, it’s a conspiracy theory.
Unlike Obama, the Bushs, the Clintons and Reagan, Trump hasn’t started any new wars.
Russia and some other 2nd and 3rd world countries are able to expand their sphere of influence a bit in America’s relative military absence, which’s why they tend to be pro-Trump, but so what?
Over the last few decades, the US has completely failed to bring order and stability to the world, instead it’s brought nothing but death and destruction.
It needs to withdraw and let other countries sort their affairs.
Trump has the right idea, America first, stop policing the world, that’s one of the real reasons why the MSM/wall street generally dislike him so much.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFV-oOMxjzc[/youtube]
fuse the maga dont believe the bipartisan reports from the committees in congress who have access to the intelligence. everything bad about trump is fake new. only oan and brietbart and the federalist are real news
like for 3 weeks not the segment of the population which is illiterate about how the courts work have been legit sitting back just waiting for these ridiculous cases to magically go to scotus when anyone with a set of eyes or who reads the briefs or the court transcripts just sees a the same clown show that the judges are seeing as theyve thrown out the cases one by one
A bipartisan U.S. Senate Intelligence report on “Russian Active Measures Campaigns and Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election” finds that Trump 2016 Presidential Campaign Manager, Paul Manafort, was secretly passing internal campaign polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, “a Russian Intelligence officer”. Wonder why.
Evidence Kilimnik may have had a role in the GRU’s hack and leak operation is redacted. Evidence that “raise[s] the possibility of Manafort’s potential connection” to the hack and leak operations is also redacted. Manafort, Gates, and Kilimnik used code words, maintained furtive communications, covered-up and erased communications when possible. They used a technique called foldering to communicate via email drafts without actually sending emails. Manafort is also connected to indicted Russian-backed, Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash. Firtash’s “translators” were Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, the two indicted campaign finance fraudsters who worked with Rudy Giuliani, all working for Trump.
Go look at Hunter’s laptop, and cry more about Trump.
show it to us
In reality, the place for election disputes is in the courts. Trump and surrogates have been free to pursue legal challenges to the election results. So far they have been unable to make arguments of legal merit or to meet evidentiary standards to prove any of the unverified, debunked, or conspiratorial claims touted on social media and in farcical press conferences.
-United States District Judge, Matthew Brann, Pennsylvania, Republican, former Federalist Society member
I saw it, I don’t think I can post child pornography on here though. Nice slippery suggestion to get me banned though. 
Did he allow Mr Giuliani to present his evidence?
No.
The purpose of a “hearing” is to hear the evidence. He didn’t hear any substantial evidence only because he declared a verdict before he listened to evidence - “It would be too impactful so I don’t want to hear it”.
The actual serious evidence is never heard until the hearing is approved. When an attorney says “This case should be dismissed for lack of evidence” and the other attorney says, “We have plenty of very serious evidence of this and that type” a hearing of the actual evidence should be allowed. It was not.
The Judge prejudged.
Did you read the full opinion, or the court reports?
Giuliani said in court it wasn’t a fraud case, when asked directly. He was never going to present evidence of fraud. There are standards in federal court. You can’t ask for hundreds of thousands of voters’ ballots to be invalidated based on spurious legal arguments. In this case, the only formal argument that Giuliani made was that because Republican-leaning counties didn’t get to “cure” as many ballots as Democrat-leaning counties, that this qualifies as unfair treatment in the election process and therefore the Democrat-leaning counties should have their votes invalidated. The judicial opinion fits.
Listen for yourself.
c-span.org/video/?478267-1/ … l-argument
The judge gets to the heart of the issue starting at the 2:14:00 time mark.
It doesn’t fit, nice try though. Educate yourself on the facts.
In that part Mr Giuliani is talking about the constitutional issue of equal treatment under the law concerning votes. His case for that is one of clear violation of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter how many voters are disenfranchised. That justice is doing exactly as I first suspected the judges would do - “this is too scary. I’m not going deal with something this impactful.”
The justice’s argument is invalid. The US Constitution cannot be ignored merely because many voters would be disenfranchised. So now after appeal, it goes to the SCOTUS (as has been expected from the start).