christiefan915
Catalyst
"Trying" doesn't mean "succeeding."
Should Trump be added to Rushmore?
- Thread starter FastLane
- Start date
christiefan915
Catalyst
She doesn't have diabetes.
And???
You a big fan of a railroad lawyer who murdered Americans over a corporate welfare agenda?
Bingo. Blacks have been assaulting Asians for decades now.
serendipity
Verified User
Plenty of things but I tire of fruitless arguments that get absolutely nowhere. Suffice to say this though even Hillary has said she'd nominate Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize if there is a peace agreement in Ukraine.
serendipity
Verified User
Shut the fuck up with your bullshit, it originated in China hence its name.
Sort of like Ebola or the Hong Kong flu. Both named for where they originated.
Christie?? You seem to have a special knowledge of Hillary's private health history so tells us about it.
Even if trump was the greatest president ever, it would be insane to talk about this at the beginning of his second term. It is a discussion for decades after he was president, when we can truly historically evaluate trump.
I do not think history will be kind to trump, but I might be wrong. If the vast majority consider me wrong, in 30 to 100 years, I will accept their verdict.
They were all dead when they were put on Rushmore. When trump is long dead, we can start a discussion on his historical significance.
trump has campaigned for president 6 times and has NEVER gotten the majority of the popular vote. That means the majority of voters doubt he would even be a good president, much less the greatest president in American history. Which in turn means there is a lot of doubt of Hater's claim. Hater may not have doubt, but the rest of America does.
Biden was actually able to get the majority of the popular vote. If you include the times he ran for VP, he got over 51% of the vote three times. Biden has never lost an election to a Republican... And he had a long political career.
Why has trump never gotten a majority of the popular vote?
Even if trump was the greatest president ever, it would be insane to talk about this at the beginning of his second term. It is a discussion for decades after he was president, when we can truly historically evaluate trump.
I do not think history will be kind to trump, but I might be wrong. If the vast majority consider me wrong, in 30 to 100 years, I will accept their verdict.
They were all dead when they were put on Rushmore. When trump is long dead, we can start a discussion on his historical significance.
In fairness, the only reason Biden had so much growth was he followed a complete failure.
.jpg)
That far left loon can not post without referring to President Trump…or TOP.5
A totally obsessed loon.
serendipity
Verified User
The Spanish Flu mostly originated in the Iberian peninsula but many believe that it was Chinese coolies who removed the many bodies from the WW1 battlefields that spread it worldwide.
The reason jobs went down is during Trump 1.0 was Blues state governors closed down their economies for COVID much longer than Trump wanted them to. When the governors finally reopened their states the economy rebounded for Biden.
Imagine that, all the state were blue when trump was president.
And?
QP!
Verified User
That is not fair though.
The WORLD suffered covid.
We have the greatest amount of comparative data available and in instances like this where it is impossible to judge any one country on whether they could have done better or worse with different decisions (counter factual) the comparative data showing how similar countries performed under the same situation is the best measure.
There simply is no denying that the US, under Biden, did better than any other country on the planet in almost every measure and they defied and stick handled around what was near the consensus, economist view that he would not be able to get that type of growth without first tipping the country into recession to force a reset.,
Obama similarly managed to stick handle the US out of the crap situation he inherited from Bush.
So while you CAN SAY, if you make good decision and implement good policy, on the back end of being handed a shit economy, then the growth and success you will experience will be higher than if you inherit a good economy, and that is true, it is still more challenging than what Bush and Trump inherited from Clinton and Obama and now Biden.
Last edited:
QP!
Verified User
@Walt
Put another way. If you became CEO of Top 10 corporation now that was on a sustained success curve (20% ROI per year) you would get less credit if your tenure just saw you continue the 20% ROI per year. You would be credited with just not screwing it up mostly.
But if you became CEO of that same company after a massive problem and crash and you managed to turn it around and return it to prior glory you would see much higher annual ROI as you are rebuilding from a failure point.
But if anyone says to that CEO, 'well of course you got the higher ROI as you got to build from a low point', that ignores it could have stayed terrible or got worse during his term and instead treats it like a return to the trend was easy and inevitable, when it was not and it is HARDER to rebuild something damaged than to manage something working well. Breaking it and bankrupting is an option as well and during tough times and wrong move gets magnified as the stresses are already present and thus worsen quicker.
Trump is the guy who inherited, twice, economies 'doing real well', and the 'world's envy' both times. he did 'not screw up' the first one until Covid, where he massively screwed the economy up (comparable data exposes that). Biden and Obama are the guys who demonstrated managerial excellence in getting world leading top results when that certainly was not certain (again see how Trump got world leading bad results during Covid as proof).
Put another way. If you became CEO of Top 10 corporation now that was on a sustained success curve (20% ROI per year) you would get less credit if your tenure just saw you continue the 20% ROI per year. You would be credited with just not screwing it up mostly.
But if you became CEO of that same company after a massive problem and crash and you managed to turn it around and return it to prior glory you would see much higher annual ROI as you are rebuilding from a failure point.
But if anyone says to that CEO, 'well of course you got the higher ROI as you got to build from a low point', that ignores it could have stayed terrible or got worse during his term and instead treats it like a return to the trend was easy and inevitable, when it was not and it is HARDER to rebuild something damaged than to manage something working well. Breaking it and bankrupting is an option as well and during tough times and wrong move gets magnified as the stresses are already present and thus worsen quicker.
Trump is the guy who inherited, twice, economies 'doing real well', and the 'world's envy' both times. he did 'not screw up' the first one until Covid, where he massively screwed the economy up (comparable data exposes that). Biden and Obama are the guys who demonstrated managerial excellence in getting world leading top results when that certainly was not certain (again see how Trump got world leading bad results during Covid as proof).
Last edited: