Wading through all the anger and hate by the two chief haters in this thread, I found two glaring, salient points of fact.
1. Neither one, in all of their characters and words, refuted one damn thing with any facts or sources.
2. All of it was just a replay of "Hate Trump" and a long-winded, but weak attempt, to try to elevate themselves.
One used 50+ words to show me something I had already seen and read, which I don't even challenge because it in no way minimizes what Trump has accomplished.
Then a 220+ word lecture ensued in an effort to try to elevate himself with a chest-pounding narrative designed to convince others -- in an egomaniacal and narcissistic sort of way -- of his self-perceived intellectual superiority.
The other took the easy way out and simply quoted and repeated more "Hate Trump" foolishness.
There was also a strong effort made to downplay the importance of using supporting facts to back up claims. It would be an advantage to any idiot in a discussion/debate not to have to support their claims with facts and/or sources -- as he so often does. However, he is not an idiot. He just refuses to back up anything he posts with any source -- other than that respected bastion of political thought and sci-fi adventure, Gizmodo. He lacks facts and won't provide them due to his self-perceived intellectual superiority.
He then returned for another 220+ word lecture and uses the lame excuse "I am not going to respond to Skippy because I do not want to be viewed as a bully of the (being PC here) "mentally challenged".
As I alluded above, he isn't responding because I provided a fact that cannot be refuted. Obama wasn't known in some quarters as "The Welfare President" for nothing. Welfare and Food Stamp rolls grew to their largest numbers in the history of the US under Obama's tenure. Welfare rolls went from the HIGHEST in our history under Obama to a 17 year low by December in Trump's first term.
And here's one of those hated sources to back it up.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/22667/gr ... seph-curl#
Former president Barack Obama has been busy since leaving office trying to secure his legacy.
But here's one big way Americans will always remember the 44th president: People forced to live on food stamp soared 32% under his watch. In 2009, when he took office, there were 33.5 million people on food stamp benefits; in October 2016, just a few months before he left office, that number had skyrocketed to 44.2 million — a jump of 10.7 million people.
The cost of the program to taxpayers rose from $50.3 billion to $66.6 billion — all while Obama's administration pushed the idea that the economy was booming (it wasn't). As the unemployment rate dropped (mainly due to Obama officials reducing the number of people considered in the "work force"), millions were forced onto food stamps.
And it's also true that Obama's economy was anemic. Obama is the only POTUS in US history to never exceed 3% annual GDP Growth.
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/12/4-reasons ... ama-didnt/
This is where Obama’s economy comes in to play. He ranks dead last for the worst economy amongst every president post-WWII. LBJ topped the chart, overseeing annual GDP growth as high as 5.3 percent, whereas Obama’s low was 1.5 percent. To put that into perspective, here’s the presidential ranking according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA):
Johnson 5.3 percent, Kennedy 4.3 percent, Clinton 3.9 percent, Reagan 3.5 percent, Carter 3.3 percent, Eisenhower 3.0 percent, (post-WWII average of 2.9 percent) Nixon 2.8 percent, Ford 2.6 percent, Bush 41 2.3 percent, Bush 43 2.1 percent, Truman 1.7 percent, Obama 1.5 percent.
Damn pesky facts and sources.
... stock market up WINNING ](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Uneducated indeed.
