Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

The real fallout pertains to the probable dozens of NDAs with other woman that will be invalidated for same reason. There is a breaking point.

Also, if this topic enters Mueller’s investigation and the President doubles down on his lie under oath he’s toast.

nontrumper wrote:

nontrumper wrote:

So much winning:

Stock market gains in the first 444 days of a Presidency:

Obama - 32.5%

Clinton - 32.2%

GW Bush - 21.4%

Trump - 20.7%

But that's not fair and I realize that there are a lot of factors involved in those numbers. Obama had it easy as did Clinton. I'd say I'm being a bit unfair to Trump now as it's so easy to pick and chose one thing or another. He'll turn things around, I'm quite confident of that.

Obama had it easy huh.

Trollminator wrote:

nontrumper wrote:

But that's not fair and I realize that there are a lot of factors involved in those numbers. Obama had it easy as did Clinton. I'd say I'm being a bit unfair to Trump now as it's so easy to pick and chose one thing or another. He'll turn things around, I'm quite confident of that.

Obama had it easy huh.

Yes oh dense one, Obama had it a lot easier than the others. Do you know what the housing market being down does to the financials? Take an Econ 101 course and get back to us. You'll never have your name and the word intelligence combined in the same sentence.

You'll have to excuse Trollminator, his handle should tell you all you need to know. Dense is a compliment.

I see not too many Trumpers feeling froggy the last couple days.

Perhaps reality is setting in.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

I've seen far too many upset Clinton fans have been grasping for straws the last couple months.

Perhaps reality is setting in, she actually did lose.

No one is coming.

Trump marches on.

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

A very stabIe genius! wrote:

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

Hi Flagpole

Flagpole wrote:

I see not too many Trumpers feeling froggy the last couple days.

Perhaps reality is setting in.

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.

Orrrr, it was a weekend? Perhaps most people think spending hours per day- everyday- like you do posting about what you *hope* will happen is a waste of time?

Mueller hasn't come for anything, and never will.

The clown is proving to be Flagpole.

(2 years of hopeful posts and inaccurate predictions down the drain for him.)

Trollminator wrote:

nontrumper wrote:

But that's not fair and I realize that there are a lot of factors involved in those numbers. Obama had it easy as did Clinton. I'd say I'm being a bit unfair to Trump now as it's so easy to pick and chose one thing or another. He'll turn things around, I'm quite confident of that.

Obama had it easy huh.

For this statistic, yes. If someone were to ask you which market you'd want to inherit if your goal was to have the largest increase a year into your presidency, wouldn't you want a stock market that JUST purged thousands of points? (Of course you would, because there's only one way to go from there- up.)

However, about 440 days after the 2016 election (not inauguration day) of Trump, the market had gained ~40%, which is unheard of. This, despite the market already being at near all time highs on election day. That is truly called "too much winning", as everyone knows a parabolic move upward can't last forever. This market breather is actually welcomed by anyone with a brain.

Econ 101-102 wrote:

For this statistic, yes. If someone were to ask you which market you'd want to inherit if your goal was to have the largest increase a year into your presidency, wouldn't you want a stock market that JUST purged thousands of points? (Of course you would, because there's only one way to go from there- up.)

Nonsense. There was plenty of down side and plenty of talk about falling into a depression.

Obama turned things around bigly. Our recovery was far better than other nations because Obama pursued a policy of stimulus instead of austerity.

unstable very wrote:

A very stabIe genius! wrote:

Good morning! How are all you LRC stable geniuses doing this fine am?

Hi Flagpole

That’s not me, brother. Mods run an IP check and if the above post by a very stable genius! is actually Flaggy BAN HIM FOR LIFE!

Mueller is coming.

The clown is done.....brother.

Fat hurts wrote:

Econ 101-102 wrote:

For this statistic, yes. If someone were to ask you which market you'd want to inherit if your goal was to have the largest increase a year into your presidency, wouldn't you want a stock market that JUST purged thousands of points? (Of course you would, because there's only one way to go from there- up.)

Nonsense. There was plenty of down side and plenty of talk about falling into a depression.

Obama turned things around bigly. Our recovery was far better than other nations because Obama pursued a policy of stimulus instead of austerity.

Plenty of downside? Are you kidding me? It was down nearly 50% by the time Obama took office! There was no more downside to be had. The bank and auto bailouts were signed by Bush already.

After the initial bailouts, the stimulus was largely ineffective, which is why the recovery was so slow (do NOT compare to "other countries" that persued austerity, as their situations were MUCH different than ours). Buying $85B of gov bonds each month didn't really spark the economy as intended, but it added a ton to the national debt. The policies the Obama administration pursued helped the banks. Remember how he was going to hold them accountable"? Ha!

Fat hurts wrote:

Econ 101-102 wrote:

For this statistic, yes. If someone were to ask you which market you'd want to inherit if your goal was to have the largest increase a year into your presidency, wouldn't you want a stock market that JUST purged thousands of points? (Of course you would, because there's only one way to go from there- up.)

Nonsense. There was plenty of down side and plenty of talk about falling into a depression.

Obama turned things around bigly. Our recovery was far better than other nations because Obama pursued a policy of stimulus instead of austerity.

I agree with the sentiment of Fat hurts here. What Econ 101-102 isn't remembering is that Republicans ripped on Obama and "his" economy the entire time Obama was in office. This was inaccurate and unfair. Many people (myself included) saw unprecedented wealth creation during his administration. Then as soon as Trump took office, everything was suddenly rosy to them.

Now for the nitpicky stuff:

1) Obama definitely deserves SOME credit for the market turn around. For some reason, people seem to forget how bad it was in late 2007 to early 2009. There was a lot of bi-partisan support for the actions Obama took early on.

2) At the same time, a rebound from such a horrible recession is going to happen, and while he walked into a really bad situation and did all the things necessary to help turn it around, he was buoyed by the fact that it WAS going to turn around. So, what I'm saying here is that this rebound would have happened almost no matter what and almost no matter who was President at the time...though to be fair, Obama did not make any mistakes during this time, and as you said Fat hurts, we could have fallen into a Depression for sure had he made mistakes. He did not.

3) Obama (and now Trump) have also hugely benefited from the large numbers of Baby Boomers who have been steadily retiring in droves for years now. When the unemployment rate hit 10% in fall 2009, I said that eventually we would have record low unemployment and that the US would be hurting to find qualified workers in several industries. That time has come to pass, and it would be here no matter who won the Presidency in 2016.

4) Trump deserves credit (though I don't agree with how this was done) for the rising stock market after he took office. Big unnecessary corporate tax cuts and deregulation with threats of more, primed the stock market for sure.

5) Trump deserves blame for the recent tanking of the market mainly with his tariff talk. It is rare for a US President to so directly affect the stock market, but he has done this both up and down since he has been in office.

6) Obama doesn't get the credit he deserves. Regardless of market cycles, he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. The market began its historic rise in March 2009 and continued almost unfettered all the way through his 8-year presidency. The market was already in great shape and had been for a long time when Trump took over. We were already at what is considered full employment (under 5%) when Trump took over.

Do you know who was involved in forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Ever hear of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

Fat Hurts, don't even pretend to pawn yourself off as smart, Obama was a huge catalyst in the housing crash. Gosh you guys are so objective, means liars, it's pathetic.

A waste of words. Your post is all bs, like usual.

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Nonsense. There was plenty of down side and plenty of talk about falling into a depression.

Obama turned things around bigly. Our recovery was far better than other nations because Obama pursued a policy of stimulus instead of austerity.

Plenty of downside? Are you kidding me? It was down nearly 50% by the time Obama took office! There was no more downside to be had. The bank and auto bailouts were signed by Bush already.

There was still plenty of downside and that is an undeniable fact. Things could have gotten much worse as they did during the Great Depression. When Obama took office a lot of people thought that's where we were headed.

It's like saying, "I'm going to buy this stock because it's down 50% and it can't go any lower." If you think like that, you will lose your shirt. A stock can still go lower until it reaches zero.

An economy can always get worse.

Econ 101-102 wrote:

Do you know who was involved in forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford them? Ever hear of the sub-prime mortgage crisis?

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fingerprints-of-obama-on-subprime-foreclosure-crisis/https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/

Fat Hurts, don't even pretend to pawn yourself off as smart, Obama was a huge catalyst in the housing crash. Gosh you guys are so objective, means liars, it's pathetic.

Are you talking about the housing bubble that started in 2007? I mean sure, one could make the argument that Obama's policies made things worse for a while, but that's hardly the definition of 'catalyst'.