NYT bends the knee on Trump’s ISIS victory

cawacko said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
cawacko said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
noise said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Darth Omar said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

isis-american-made-weapons.png
 
Last edited:
Cypress said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
cawacko said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Cypress said:
Let's remember who on this forum hounded us, begged us, and demanded that we invade Iraq, ultimately destabilizing the country along with much of the middle east:
Click to expand...

Hillary Clinton was on this forum in 2003?

Conservatives.

ISIS was on the run, and in collapse throughout Obama's last year or 18 months in office. Trump kept the Obama strategy with a few tactical changes. Trump is the second string field goal kicker who kicked a field goal in the last seconds of a game that was already decided.
Click to expand...

Lying faggot, they held a caliphate from Aleppo to Fallujah.
 
1. Ross Douthat is the token nationalist on NYT's editorial board. Not at all surprising to see him licking Trump's sack.

2. As I've said many times, by January 20th the Iraqi Army's operation in Mosul was already well underway, and the PYD had Al-Raqqa encircled. You could have seen their house of cards was about to tumble down a year back. This is the Iraqi Armys and PYDs victory over ISIS, not Trumps.
 
noise said:
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)
Click to expand...

The US army wasn't doing the street by street fighting, the Iraqi Army and PYD was.
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Slowest recovery since WW2, 95 million out of the labor force, amd never achieving an annual GDP growth of 3% (the only President to achieve that).
 
The Deep State said:
1. Ross Douthat is the token nationalist on NYT's editorial board. Not at all surprising to see him licking Trump's sack.

2. As I've said many times, by January 20th the Iraqi Army's operation in Mosul was already well underway, and the PYD had Al-Raqqa encircled. You could have seen their house of cards was about to tumble down a year back. This is the Iraqi Armys and PYDs victory over ISIS, not Trumps.
Click to expand...

Lol the Caliphate held territory from Fallujah to Allepo during the reign of the affirmative action President.
 
Thing1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

We had the 90-91 recession then had 3.6% GDP growth in '92 so Clinton was taking office with economic tailwinds behind him.

Check out the charts Christine Romer and Jared Bernstein had when selling the stimulus (they were two of Obama's top economic advisors). They showed where the economy was, where employment was, and where it would be with and without the stimulus. The results didn't come close to their numbers. That's what I'm judging it on. Yes, when the government spends close to a trillion dollars it's going to have some effect on the economy but it didn't come close to what they predicted.
 
The Deep State said:
The US army wasn't doing the street by street fighting, the Iraqi Army and PYD was.
Click to expand...
But they are in close support roles for the fighting -helping to direct Iraq/Peshmega forces

In final stages of Mosul fight, U.S. troops take on expanded role
at a modest house in a residential west Mosul neighborhood. About a dozen U.S. troops and Iraqi soldiers were hunched over computers identifying IS targets just a few hundred meters away ahead of the next day's operation. The presence of U.S. forces at the small patrol base deep inside Mosul is a level of support that had not been authorized when the Mosul fight first began.

Under the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis moved U.S. combat advisers closer to the fight by authorizing U.S. troops to partner with Iraqi forces at the battalion level.

The U.S.-led coalition's fight against IS in Iraq has slowly expanded over the past three years from a campaign of airstrikes carried out by coalition forces who largely stayed within heavily fortified bases to an operation with some 6,000 American troops on the ground, many operating close to frontline fighting. The evolution suggests that despite a large training program designed to generate enough soldiers to retake Mosul, Coalition officials assessed Iraqi forces lacked the tactical skills to conduct the operation without close support
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top