NYT bends the knee on Trump’s ISIS victory

[dukkha]

Trump's Jerusalem Move Will Fuel ISIS

http://www.newsweek.com/president-trumps-jerusalem-move-will-fuel-isis-jewish-settlers-739374

ree-diculous! who writes this crap?

[Русский агент]

ree-diculous! who writes this crap?

Liberal propagandists pushing an agenda, I guess.

[dukkha]

How did Trump achieve victory? By tweeting that Mosul was a disaster when soldiers were in harm's way, and when Mosul was actually going extremely well?

street by street fighting requires instantaneous decision making - loosening up ROE improves that ability.

now before you REACT..recall I wrote Trump was following Obama's over all strategy ( but not tactics)

[Cypress]

The bolded has been countered by Trump's "alternative facts."

Same w/ the economy. The market tripled under Obama & we were almost back to full employment when he left office. But for both ISIS and the economy, Trump told his minions that Obama was a "disaster" and we were "losing," so of course he miraculously turned both around in less than a year.

Also worth remembering:
The Obama strategy (training, support, airstrikes) - which ultimately worked - was dismissed, degraded, and mocked by a lot of conservatives....many of whom were implying or suggesting that Obama needed to put more "boots on the ground".

In other words, conservatives wanted to get us into another ground war in Iraq.

[cawacko]

The bolded has been countered by Trump's "alternative facts."

Same w/ the economy. The market tripled under Obama & we were almost back to full employment when he left office. But for both ISIS and the economy, Trump told his minions that Obama was a "disaster" and we were "losing," so of course he miraculously turned both around in less than a year.

Trump aside it was one of the weakest recoveries on record and with the gov't easy money policies flooding the market the Dow rose as it did. That's why there was still such anxiety across the country about the economy even with the low unemployment numbers

[PraiseKek]

Must be why his approval numbers are at record lows and most likely will continue to decline once the new tax bill is signed into law.

The polls indicated Hillary would win in a landslide, how'd that work out for you?

[Darth Omar]

Its the poll numbers that get a candidate re elected, honey pot, and you aint going anywhere at 30%

If ‘polls got candidates elected’, you’d be defending the mess Madame Hillary had made of Syria and who knows what else.

[dukkha]

Hillary Clinton and the Syrian Bloodbath
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...b_9231190.html

[Cancel 2020.1]

Trump aside it was one of the weakest recoveries on record and with the gov't easy money policies flooding the market the Dow rose as it did. That's why there was still such anxiety across the country about the economy even with the low unemployment numbers

I understand the anxiety, but what a joke to try to portray Obama as a poor economic President. If you look at the economy strictly in terms of where Presidents leave it, it's hard to remember the last time a Republican left it in anything but bad shape, and the last time a Democrat left it in anything but good or great shape. I know that's a simplistic way to look at it, but that's Trump's world.

Obama wasn't a "disaster" on the economy. He inherited an absolute wreck - an economy spiraling lower & lower, basically out of control. The stimulus was about as much as a government can do to alter that, and it worked. He gets credit for that, AND we were almost back to full employment by the time he left. Jobs & wages still leave much to be desired, but it's a sharp contrast to where we thought we'd be in 2009, and certainly compared to what many on the right said the stimulus would do to America.

[Cypress]

Trump aside it was one of the weakest recoveries on record and with the gov't easy money policies flooding the market the Dow rose as it did. That's why there was still such anxiety across the country about the economy even with the low unemployment numbers

We are going to use the exact same performance standard as your hero Ronald Reagan did - are you better off than you were four years ago (under the previous president)?

That is the Reagan standard of presidential performance, and until the last couple years I have never heard a conservative even suggest this was the wrong performance standard, the wrong metric to use. It was the metric made up by your hero, Ronnie Raygun.

So, on balance, was the country better off economically when Obama left office, than when the guy your party supported left office in January 2009?

[Darth Omar]

street by street fighting requires instantaneous decision making - loosening up ROE improves that ability.

now before you REACT..recall I wrote Trump was following Obama's over all strategy ( but not tactics)

Ross Douthat called ISIS ‘the defining foreign policy calamity of Barack Obama’s second term’ in the OP. He also said ‘the defeat of ISIS began under Obama’.

Then Trump came along and finished cleaning up Obama’s ‘defining calamity’ by tweeking Obama’s strategy and adding a couple twists of his own.

None of that is really debatable.

My point was that it’s been over looked by the media, because the media is largely biased, and that Trump’s foreign policy is much better than ANY of his detractors predicted.

[cawacko]

I understand the anxiety, but what a joke to try to portray Obama as a poor economic President. If you look at the economy strictly in terms of where Presidents leave it, it's hard to remember the last time a Republican left it in anything but bad shape, and the last time a Democrat left it in anything but good or great shape. I know that's a simplistic way to look at it, but that's Trump's world.

Obama wasn't a "disaster" on the economy. He inherited an absolute wreck - an economy spiraling lower & lower, basically out of control. The stimulus was about as much as a government can do to alter that, and it worked. He gets credit for that, AND we were almost back to full employment by the time he left. Jobs & wages still leave much to be desired, but it's a sharp contrast to where we thought we'd be in 2009, and certainly compared to what many on the right said the stimulus would do to America.

George Bush Sr left a recovering and growing economy and Clinton left the dot com bust and a recession. The stimulus did not meet its proposed goals and did very little. It was largely political help for supporters.

There's no question Obama inherited an incredible mess. But he didn't push for economic growth. He passed Obamacare and Dodd Frank, both massive new regulations. It's why he's the first president since Hoover to not have 3% growth once during his term.

[dukkha]

Ross Douthat called ISIS ‘the defining foreign policy calamity of Barack Obama’s second term’ in the OP. He also said ‘the defeat of ISIS began under Obama’.

Then Trump came along and finished cleaning up Obama’s ‘defining calamity’ by tweeking Obama’s strategy and adding a couple twists of his own.

None of that is really debatable.

My point was that it’s been over looked by the media, because the media is largely biased, and that Trump’s foreign policy is much better than ANY of his detractors predicted.

absolutely. remember how ISIS was able to quickly over-run Iraq in PICK UP TRUCKS,
until they met up with Iraq troops who were horrified at the blitzkrieg and abandoned their weapons -
even tanks and artillery that ISIS trucked back into Syria..

Meanwhile Mr. Obama was dithering around with his "JV" talk instead of hitting the convoys in open desert

[cawacko]

We are going to use the exact same performance standard as your hero Ronald Reagan did - are you better off than you were four years ago (under the previous president)?

That is the Reagan standard of presidential performance, and until the last couple years I have never heard a conservative even suggest this was the wrong performance standard, the wrong metric to use. It was the metric made up by your hero, Ronnie Raygun.

So, on balance, was the country better off economically when Obama left office, than when the guy your party supported left office in January 2009?

I'm not running for President so I'm allowed to discuss real economic performance. Though I give you a high five for finding a creative way around talking about how Obama did

[Cancel 2020.1]

George Bush Sr left a recovering and growing economy and Clinton left the dot com bust and a recession. The stimulus did not meet its proposed goals and did very little. It was largely political help for supporters.

There's no question Obama inherited an incredible mess. But he didn't push for economic growth. He passed Obamacare and Dodd Frank, both massive new regulations. It's why he's the first president since Hoover to not have 3% growth once during his term.

Unemployment growth rose through June of 1992. So, you're giving Bush credit for an incredibly weak start of a recovery during his last few months in office. But technically correct, I suppose.

Clinton left a mild recession, but a completely revitalized economy with millions more employed and a whole sector of new business that would continue to anchor our economy well beyond his tenure.

And what you said about the stimulus is 100% inaccurate. It was never intended to create careers - it was intended to get people working again, even temporarily, so the private sector could take over. It did just that; it created or saved over 3 million jobs, and its mere passage turned the stock market around.

What you wrote about it is just a right-wing talking point. Kind of surprised you'd go that route.