Poll of the Day > Who is the better president? Trump or Bush

(+) Yeah! (+)

Zeus posted...

Trump didn't cause COVID and his early efforts to halt COVID's entrance in the country were met by strong objections by Democrats *including* Joe Biden. Trump didn't so much "drive anything in the ground" as Democrats kept grabbing the wheel from him to try to crash the car (such as Nancy Pelosi's refusal to come to terms on new relief packages -- hurting or killing Americans in the process -- to gain political advantage for Biden). Not that I 100% fault them for their dirty politics, because both sides do shit like that... well, I mean I do fault them, but it's more a matter that either way that's how shit winds up working.

XD

---

Oh look Zeus is back with more crappy opinions and defending crappy behavior based on some twisted worldview that would destroy civilization if it were fully realized on a global level.

---

Zeus posted...

Which is a different tune than I imagine you were singing when he was in office and favorably comparing him to previous presidents. Kind of a running theme.

I know, right? But give it a little time, once another Republican gets elected president suddenly they'll all become hardcore Trump defenders and criticize me for being overly negative on him.

This. GWB backed so much downright horrific legislation that directly impacted all Americans (as did Obama, who publicly defended PRISM).

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22820711

I know that you just got woke a few years ago, but the mortgage crisis only erupted near the end of his term so you're expecting him to have solved a problem which, at that point, was still the mortgage bubble where the best case scenario was popping it early and still triggering a global economic collapse. And he would have needed to it right after 9/11, which triggered one of the other largest economic hits in US history. Oh, and by the way? He had barely taken office when 9/11 hit, and the problem also predated his administration by many years. That goes back to Clinton with roots that might have stretched as far as into GHWB.

If Obama had any economic coattails to ride, maybe. However, Obama was a staunchly anti-business president with a "You didn't build that!" attitude who did little or nothing to encourage improvement during his regime. The biggest things he did for the economy were co-signing the relief packages put together by GWB's administration. While I'm not necessarily suggesting that all of the improvements under Trump were Trump's doing (such as the markets reacting favorably to his election, unlike the media naming BIden the presumptive winner where he was simply buoyed by news of a vaccine), but he actively supported business whereas Obama attacked industry after industry with countless new regulations (which, when many were rolled back, things improved)

Trump didn't cause COVID and his early efforts to halt COVID's entrance in the country were met by strong objections by Democrats *including* Joe Biden. Trump didn't so much "drive anything in the ground" as Democrats kept grabbing the wheel from him to try to crash the car (such as Nancy Pelosi's refusal to come to terms on new relief packages -- hurting or killing Americans in the process -- to gain political advantage for Biden). Not that I 100% fault them for their dirty politics, because both sides do shit like that... well, I mean I do fault them, but it's more a matter that either way that's how shit winds up working.

Lol

Kotenks posted...

Bush, better person. Trump, better president.

This.

---

I never felt like Bush actively hated a huge amount of the people in this country. But Trump thrives on hatred. Bush is an ass, but Trump is a monster.

---

Zeus posted...

I know that you just got woke a few years ago

I've been politically active for longer than you've been alive, sparky.

Zeus posted...

but the mortgage crisis only erupted near the end of his term so you're expecting him to have solved a problem which, at that point, was still the mortgage bubble where the best case scenario was popping it early and still triggering a global economic collapse.

You do know there are other ways to deal with bubble markets other than "popping" them, right? Or did you think the phrase "bubble" was literal rather than a metaphor?

GWB was warned about the mortgage crisis. His advisors championed regulations to reign in bad financial behaviour of pseudo-banks that were basically banks wearing a Groucho-Marx mask in order to avoid the restrictions on banks that were designed specifically to head off crises the one that Bush wound up steering his country directly into. The GSE reform bill died due to Bush's opposition; the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured Fannie May and Freddie Mac to push high-risk, sub-prime mortgages, which is almost the polar opposite of what they should have been doing; one of the planks of Bush's "Ownership Society" was encouraging Americans to own property, which filtered down through regulations and government priorities into setting up an environment for people to take on and shadow-banks to provide inherently high risk loans which, thanks to the aforementioned lack of regulation, were usually uninsured.

Again, if you buy that this whole thing started in the Clinton era (questionable - at least some of the trends that led to the mortgage crisis have their roots in the first Bush administration), that still means that Dubya had eight years to fix it and failed to do so.

Zeus posted...

If Obama had any economic coattails to ride, maybe.

Obama halved the unemployment rate over the course of his presidency, dropping it by more than six points; Trump managed to drop it by less than one point. Obama had four separate quarterly GDP growths of at least 4%; Trump has zero. Obama's final three years in office saw annual GDP expansion of more than 3%; Trump has yet to reach that benchmark for even a single year. Hell, in 2019, Trump managed a mere 1.99% GDP growth, which is lower than all of Obama's post-2010 years except one.

Hell, if you want a real indicator of how well Obama managed the economy, Obama and Clinton collectively created more jobs than every single Republican president since WW2 combined.

Trump basically took office, watched as the economy started to slow down, then crashed it into the ground with his COVID response. Speaking of which:

Zeus posted...

Trump didn't cause COVID

Never said he did - that said, it's his job to respond to it and he did a pretty shit job of it. Which, y'know, is why the American economy is in the toilet.

Zeus posted...

and his early efforts to halt COVID's entrance in the country were met by strong objections by Democrats *including* Joe Biden.

Literal fake news.

Chuck Schumer was calling on the Trump admin to declare a public health emergency as early as January. Less than a week later, over 30 Democrat senators wrote a letter to Alex Azar demanding updates on the current status of the disease and the administration's response, as well as asking if any additional congressional aid was required.

Trump did nothing until January 31 and even then, his attempts were poorly planned (remember how Trump only closed travel from China at first, even though the virus had spread well beyond its borders?), poorly communicated (remember that disastrous TV broadcast that the administration had to immediately put out corrections for?), and poorly executed (remember all those shots of airports with people standing in massive crowds because they all rushed to get back to the US?).

Even then, Trump's actions at best bought him some time. So what did he do with that time? Start warning the populace about the threat posed by the virus? Create a robust contact tracing regime? Start replenishing PPE? Develop a national strategy?

Nope! He did nothing. Actually, I take that back because doing nothing would have been an improvement on what he actually did because at least "nothing" is not actively harmful and sabotaging attempts at a coherent response. Trump spent the next few months calling the disease a Democrat hoax, insisting it was just a few people from China and that everything was under control, and that the whole thing would go away soon.

Zeus posted...

such as Nancy Pelosi's refusal to come to terms on new relief packages -- hurting or killing Americans in the process -- to gain political advantage for Biden

Strange way to spell "Moscow Mitch".

Pelosi wanted a comprehensive relief plan to help American citizens. She and the Democrat congress passed one in the summer. Then she passed another one in October. She held negotiations with the White House on specifics. She was actively calling for COVID-19 relief bills even as the Republican senate was busy ignoring the virus, rushing through a SCOTUS nomination, then adjourning.

Moscow Mitch and the senate never passed a relief bill of their own and refused to take part in negotiations with the Democrats. Mitch also told the White House to stop negotiating with Pelosi because he did not believe there was any bill he could pass and having the senate highlighted as the reason why the relief bill was stalling out would put their precious majority at risk, which was clearly more important than the lives of Americans.

---

I hate that people call him Moscow Mitch when they really should call him Bitch McConnell.

---

Zareth posted...

I hate that people call him Moscow Mitch when they really should call him Bitch McConnell.

I use Moscow Mitch for two reasons.

First, it draws attention to the fact that Moscow Mitch did, in fact, make it easier for the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election and left other elections at risk. When Barack Obama asked congress to sign onto a joint letter with him in the middle of 2016 warning Russia that meddling in US elections wouldn't be tolerated, McConnell refused and said he would consider "efforts to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics" - this asshole literally refused to speak up against a foreign enemy country interfering in one of the most core elements of American democracy because he thought that interference would benefit him politically (and he was correct). Moscow Mitch has also blocked several bills designed to beef up election security in the aftermath of 2016, seemingly because he again hoped to benefit this year.

Second, and far more importantly, Moscow Mitch hates that nickname and has publicly complained about it, calling it "modern-day McCarthyism" (lol). Considering this is a guy who wore the nickname "Cocaine Mitch" like it was some badge of honour, the fact that this appears to be something that gets under his skin warms my heart.

---

man101 posted...

Oh look Zeus is back with more crappy opinions and defending crappy behavior based on some twisted worldview that would destroy civilization if it were fully realized on a global level.

Oh look man101 is trolling again with some nonsense rather than addressing any of the points

darkknight109 posted...

I've been politically active for longer than you've been alive, sparky.

I was voting before your father hit puberty.

darkknight109 posted...

You do know there are other ways to deal with bubble markets other than "popping" them, right? Or did you think the phrase "bubble" was literal rather than a metaphor?

GWB was warned about the mortgage crisis. His advisors championed regulations to reign in bad financial behaviour of pseudo-banks that were basically banks wearing a Groucho-Marx mask in order to avoid the restrictions on banks that were designed specifically to head off crises the one that Bush wound up steering his country directly into. The GSE reform bill died due to Bush's opposition; the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured Fannie May and Freddie Mac to push high-risk, sub-prime mortgages, which is almost the polar opposite of what they should have been doing; one of the planks of Bush's "Ownership Society" was encouraging Americans to own property, which filtered down through regulations and government priorities into setting up an environment for people to take on and shadow-banks to provide inherently high risk loans which, thanks to the aforementioned lack of regulation, were usually uninsured.

By the time GWB could have been involved in it, things had already ballooned. The situation was akin to a house being doused in kerosene, a match being lit, the building burning, and then getting mad that GWB didn't somehow save the structure when it was already on fire at that point. At most, he would have impacted the very tail-end of a structure that was already very fucked.

And the loan pressure started under Clinton and carried forward. The "Ownership Society" excuse is a red herring. The only thing you *might* be able to pin on them was the fact that they didn't pump the brakes hard and derail the train sooner. But sure, he can claim some of the blame for that.

darkknight109 posted...

Again, if you buy that this whole thing started in the Clinton era (questionable - at least some of the trends that led to the mortgage crisis have their roots in the first Bush administration),

And if you want to get really technical about it, the roots go back even further -- The Big Short credits Lewis Ranieri with laying the groundwork in the 70s. At any rate, it's a long arc, but the 90s were the big push.

darkknight109 posted...

Obama halved the unemployment rate over the course of his presidency, dropping it by more than six points; Trump managed to drop it by less than one point. Obama had four separate quarterly GDP growths of at least 4%; Trump has zero. Obama's final three years in office saw annual GDP expansion of more than 3%; Trump has yet to reach that benchmark for even a single year. Hell, in 2019, Trump managed a mere 1.99% GDP growth, which is lower than all of Obama's post-2010 years except one.

Hell, if you want a real indicator of how well Obama managed the economy, Obama and Clinton collectively created more jobs than every single Republican president since WW2 combined.

Except he didn't do any of that, and neither did Clinton. Both benefited from factors that they didn't drive. In the case of Obama, had he done *nothing* (other than co-signing Bush's recovery package), the recovery would have been faster. As for Clinton, he benefited from a tech boom he did nothing to create (unless you believe Al Gore created the internet), the collapse of which wound up hitting GWB.

darkknight109 posted...

Literal fake news.

Chuck Schumer was calling on the Trump admin to declare a public health emergency as early as January. Less than a week later, over 30 Democrat senators wrote a letter to Alex Azar demanding updates on the current status of the disease and the administration's response, as well as asking if any additional congressional aid was required.

...none of which conflicts with what I said. And despite Schumer asking for a "public health emergency," he stood silent when Trump was criticized-- by China and Democrats alike -- for his travel restrictions:

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/26/op-ed-coronovirus-sniping-proves-politics-is-the-real-disease.html

At the time, a former head of the CDCs Public Health Preparedness and Response team called the travel ban an extraordinary measure. China blasted the travel ban as excessive and questioned Americas empathy.
Schumer didnt defend Trump then. It would have been nice if he had, but that wasnt likely since Schumers Twitter feed and public appearances were dominated during that period by the Senate impeachment trial and his complaints about the lack of witnesses being called.

And Schumer certainly didn't speak up about the importance when Biden was calling Trump's move racist and xenophobic at a Iowa rally and doing his damnedest to undermine the administration and its response, saying that the American people couldn't trust them. Where was Chuck Schumer then?

And, it's worth noting, the US was one of the first Western nations to impose a travel ban on China (iirc beaten only by Italy).

darkknight109 posted...

Strange way to spell "Moscow Mitch".

Pelosi wanted a comprehensive relief plan to help American citizens. She and the Democrat congress passed one in the summer. Then she passed another one in October. She held negotiations with the White House on specifics. She was actively calling for COVID-19 relief bills even as the Republican senate was busy ignoring the virus, rushing through a SCOTUS nomination, then adjourning.

Moscow Mitch and the senate never passed a relief bill of their own and refused to take part in negotiations with the Democrats. Mitch also told the White House to stop negotiating with Pelosi because he did not believe there was any bill he could pass and having the senate highlighted as the reason why the relief bill was stalling out would put their precious majority at risk, which was clearly more important than the lives of Americans.

"Let Them All Eat Cake" Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to avoid coming to terms on relief packages, refusing to compromise on outrageous demands in the name of getting a bill passed to actually help the American people. Even as Democrats were coming out criticizing her inaction, she doubled down. And for what? To try to gin up support in November. Meanwhile Mitch McConnell had every incentive to want to help the American people, but was blocked.


---

Hey, you didn't take your customary ten days to respond to a topic in order to try and sneak the last word in! I must have really rustled some jimmies with that last response.

Zeus posted...

I was voting before your father hit puberty.

You wouldn't still be alive if that was the case.

Zeus posted...

By the time GWB could have been involved in it, things had already ballooned. The situation was akin to a house being doused in kerosene, a match being lit, the building burning, and then getting mad that GWB didn't somehow save the structure when it was already on fire at that point.

To continue the analogy, what Bush actually did was come up, see that the stove had caught fire in the kitchen, shrugged his shoulders and then started spraying jet fuel at it out of a fire hose while simultaneously smashing the nearest fire hydrants so that the fire department couldn't use them.

Once again, Bush had eight full years to do whatever he had to to prevent the coming crash or minimize his effects, and not only did he fail to stop it, he actively deep-sixed multiple pieces of legislation that would have gone a long way to either heading off the crash or making it a lot less painful.

Zeus posted...

And the loan pressure started under Clinton and carried forward.

The loaning scheme actually started under George H.W. Bush, but anything so that a "left-leaning centrist" can avoid criticizing a right-wing government, eh?

Zeus posted...

Except he didn't do any of that, and neither did Clinton. Both benefited from factors that they didn't drive.

As did Trump.

If you're going to make the argument that presidents get too much credit when things are going well and too much blame when they aren't, I completely agree. The problem is, Trump is quite possibly the ultimate example of that. He did nothing to gin the economy and the actions that he *did* take - the trade war with China, in particular - measurably hurt economic growth, which is why he never got the numbers Obama did.

You can't say that Clinton and Obama benefited from a good economy and don't deserve credit while simultaneously trying to argue that the good economy that Trump was elected into was entirely his own doing.

Zeus posted...

And Schumer certainly didn't speak up about the importance when Biden was calling Trump's move racist and xenophobic at a Iowa rally and doing his damnedest to undermine the administration and its response, saying that the American people couldn't trust them. Where was Chuck Schumer then?

Oh noes, mean ol' Schumer didn't leap to the defence of a president from the opposite party!

Go put together a list of all the times that Moscow Mitch spoke out in defence of Obama when the Tea Party was busy launching their 57th Benghazi Inquiry ("No, really, we'll find something this time, guys!") or trying to repeal Obamacare for the five hundredth time and then we can discuss about how terrible it is that Schumer wasn't defending Trump.

BTW, Biden was absolutely correct saying that the American people couldn't trust the administration, as evinced by pretty much everything they've done in the last four years. That being said, Trump was - as previously mention - fighting very hard to pretend all was well and Americans didn't have to worry or take precautions, because the whole thing was a Democrat hoax to make him look bad. Americans were wise not to trust an administration saying shit like that; a lot of the ones who did are now dead.

Also, you keep posting fake news. No, Biden did not call Trump's travel ban racist or xenophobic; in fact, at the Iowa rally where he supposedly made those comments, Biden did not discuss Trump's travel ban at all. What he *did* say was that Trump had a history of xenophobia (true) and that his reference to COVID-19 as "the China virus" was racist fear-mongering against foreigners (also true).

---

Zeus posted...

And, it's worth noting, the US was one of the first Western nations to impose a travel ban on China (iirc beaten only by Italy).

You, in fact, do not recall correctly, unless you have a very flexible definition of the words "Western" and "ban".

Trump announced his ban on January 31, but bizarrely allowed people to continue to travel until February 2, meaning thousands of foreigners and Americans rushed to beat the border closure, creating a huge bottleneck at the airports. China's SEZs - Hong Kong and Macao - were, for some reason, not included in the ban.

A total of 12 countries banned travel from China prior to Trump's announcement and 11 more banned it the same day Trump made his press conference. But by the time the ban actually took effect, fully 45 countries had already banned travel from China (and several others, such as Japan, had already imposed more targeted bans, like restricting travel from Wuhan specifically, but had not implemented a full national ban). These included Australia, the Bahamas, Italy, Jamaica, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, New Zealand, and Trinidad and Tobago.

Zeus posted...

Nancy Pelosi went out of her way to avoid coming to terms on relief packages

Coming to terms with who? Again, she'd already passed two relief bills, neither of which were taken up in the senate. She was negotiating with the administration, but they seemed to have no idea what they wanted. Mnuchin insisted that the Democrats were asking for too much, but that was immediately belayed by Trump, who said that he wanted a bigger relief package than the Democrats (but, of course, he wasn't willing to actually negotiate himself and spell out what he wanted).

Simply put, there was nobody for Pelosi to come to terms with, given that the administration was a dumpster fire constantly spitting out contradictory demands (surprise, surprise), while Moscow Mitch couldn't even get his own caucus in order to pass a senate relief bill in order to start negotiations on his end.

Zeus posted...

Meanwhile Mitch McConnell had every incentive to want to help the American people, but was blocked.

Again, blocked by who? Unless you're talking about his fellow Republicans, there is absolutely no basis for this statement. Moscow Mitch did not pass any relief bills in his chamber (and even the incredibly-limited ones he did bring up for a vote were shot down by Republican floor-crossers), did not participate in any negotiations with the Democrats, and told the White House that they had to stop negotiating or else they were going to make him look bad and risk losing the Republican majority in the senate.

The Democrats have had their ducks in a row for months; the Republicans have been busy sitting around with their thumbs up their asses doing sweet fuck all while the country dies in a fucking plague.

---

@darkknight109 you're doing Gods work.

---

Zeus posted...

Oh look man101 is trolling again with some nonsense rather than addressing any of the points

Imagine being so delusional that when an entire message board considers you a troll and celebrates when you're warned or suspended you still have to accuse other people of being trolls and accuse them of not addressing your points when every time they do address your points with actual facts you just accuse them of being trolls or alts.

You live in a fantasy world bud. There's a reason you keep getting modded and the rest of us don't and it's not because of *hurr LiBeraL BiAS*


---

man101 posted...

Imagine being so delusional that when an entire message board considers you a troll and celebrates when you're warned or suspended you still have to accuse other people of being trolls and accuse them of not addressing your points when every time they do address your points with actual facts you just accuse them of being trolls or alts.

You live in a fantasy world bud. There's a reason you keep getting modded and the rest of us don't and it's not because of *hurr LiBeraL BiAS*

You should see the board he users for his ideas. Its like looking into the sun.

---