Mueller's report looks bad for Obama

MSgt Steve Sweeney - No way was the average Real GDP growth for Obama above 2%. That is someone playing with numbers vs reality. And of course if you look at the official U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis in order to get that 2.1 to 2.2.% for Obama you have to credit some of the Economic growth that took place under Trump to Obama and shift some of the economic decline that happened under Obama back to George Bush. Nice try at revising history and attempting to make Obama look better than he was.

SPC Erich Guenther - please refer to the Real GDP growth chart, by year. Considering he walked into worst economic situation we’ve seen since the Depression, the numbers aren’t bad. Better than, “a few good quarters”.

When looking at our economy, it’s important to understand that what’s happening today isn’t because of what the President did last week. Our economy flows in waves, often years or decades long. It’s wrong to criticize a current President for any current economic situation entirely, just as it’s wrong to credit a current President for any current economic situation entirely. A good example of this is how the scaling back of the Glass-Steagall Act in the late 90s helped contribute to the financial crisis a decade or so later.

Who cares, though. It’s doing well now. In 5-8 years, we’ll experience another small recession. A few years after that, the bulls will run again. That’s the nature of the economy.

But what about those Obama successes? Or the high speed rails that states were turning hundreds of millions, or billions, of federal dollars for?

MSG Joseph Cristofaro - https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-is-obama-protecting-venezuelan-dictator-hugo-chavez/

SGT (Join to see) - Here is where your analysis is off. First I stand behind my comments on the Obama economy. His economic growth spiked in quarters based on implementation of policies and spending of government money more than it did based on true sustainable economic growth. It's why you see a smoother trendline under Trump. Further I am looking at REAL GDP and averaging it across the Presidential term from an official U.S. government source (ie: Not the ethically challenged Washington Post which has problems with facts).
On your high speed rail analysis I could write 3-4 pages on that since that is an area of expertise of mine but I will surmise it in a few sentences It does not matter that the states offered the money refused the money. They were not given the money, instead the Obama redistributed the money to other states that stated they would spend it. So the argument that states refused the money implying the investment was never made is false. The $15 Billion was spent and the investments were all made at this point we do not have a single new high speed line outside of the Northeast Corridor (which is falling apart under Amtraks lack of investment). So the question remains, why wasn't that $15 Billion spent on current infrastructure that was falling apart and needing the investment vs building new infrastructure? Ask Joe "Amtrak" Biden, he is running for POTUS and this program was entirely his doing. EPIC Fail so far. Amtrak gets brand new High Speed Rail Trainsets in about a year or two but guess what? They aren't going to travel any faster than the old ones they replace and might even travel slower because little to no money was spent on the track they will run on. We did get high speed track between Chicago and St. Louis which is currently rated at 110 mph but guess what? No trainsets built yet to take advantage of that speed, instead max speed is 80 mph over the line, same as it was before the Obama upgrade because they have not built the equipment yet to take advantage of the track upgrade (classic government run project). Illionois just had the largest tax increase in it's history and it can't even afford to maintain METRA's budget in Chicago, let alone a High Speed Rail Corridor delivered to them mostly free of charge........see how that works? So Wisconsin looks like it was pretty smart to turn away the money. Wisconsin's incremental approach to HSR is more effective and they are able to run trains on the Chicago to Milwaukee line 10 mph faster than Illinois is on the Illinois high speed rail line. Wisconsin also has plans on the table to increase freuencies from 7 to 10 RT, Chicago to Milwaukee. Illinois has no expansion in train frequency plans due to lack of money. Wisconsin is also actively working with Minnesota to add another Chicago to St.Paul, MN train. Wisconsin was demonized by liberals for rejecting the Obama money but currently is doing far better with rail corridors than Illinois and is not up to it's neck in debt nor has it needed to increase taxes as much as Illiinois has. Now look what happened to California High Speed Rail, which is another state Obama invested Billions on. Postponed indefinitely.

I hope they do it. I think at this point, people who are not already leftists are going to be put off by the constant collusion hysteria. If Democrats impeach Trump, they'll be showing their ass to the rest of the country. Combine that with the indictments for real crimes that will come rolling down on Dems and Deep-staters in the next year, and Trump is going to be reelected in a landslide.

And since a lot of left-leaning states are committing their electoral delegates to whoever wins the popular vote, it's quite possible that we could see a McGovern/Mondale level of electoral trouncing, something I thought we'd never see again.

If you favor Republicans in the White House, an impeachment and guilty trial is not so bad as long as they hurry up. Incumbents always do well and if Pence finished out Trump 1st presidency, Incumbent Pence in 2020 and 2024 would be hard to beat. Twelve years of Republicans in the White House, all helped by Democrats throwing fits that Hillary won.

SSgt Christopher Brose - Electoral delegates are only supposed to commit to the popular vote when it is their person; if it is not their selection that wins the popular vote they will state that they do not have to abide by their contracted word. Isn't that breach of contract?
These people think that the rest of us are stupid uneducated redneck hillbilly hicks in flyover country.

SSG Robert Webster “If any of them act on their promises, it would be rare. In the 240 year history of the U.S., there have been 157 faithless electors, according to the nonprofit FairVote. Nearly half changed their votes because the candidate to whom they were pledged died before the Electoral College met, three chose to abstain and the other 82 broke their pledge for reasons of personal preference or conscience. But none has ever successfully changed the outcome of an election.”