Is Trump doing a good job?

[I Shrugged]

I give him big points for tenacity. Subtract big points for personality. But, he's had the guts to take on the swamp and many deeply entrenched bad policies, and just keep pushing ahead. He's an inflationist, but aren't they all?

I have no doubt that the swamp will make sure he goes down in history as a criminal hack. But seeing this man expose the establishment has been great for me.

[dualstow]

That’s kind of like what Shekels said.
Did we not know corruption existed before Trump came along? Insisting Obama was not American and then running for office. Did we not know of corruption before that?

[jhogue]

I doubt that it matters whether most people think that Trump is doing a good job or not. Consider the following:

Elizabeth Warren supporters are congenitally incapable of accepting that Donald Trump was elected President in 2016.

Bernie Sanders supporters insist that they do not know anyone who voted for Donald Trump.

Bill Maher and his audience really do believe that “the Donald” is Bozo the Clown AND the second coming of Adolf Hitler—without a hint of cognitive dissonance.

[dualstow]

I doubt that it matters whether most people think that Trump is doing a good job or not.

He may very well be re-elected, but in the meantime I’m genuinely interested in your assessment.

[jhogue]

Your query reminds me of the time that an American reporter asked Chinese premier Chou Enlai what he thought about the French Revolution. He pondered that matter for a moment, and then replied “Too soon to tell.”

[dualstow]

hahaha

[WiseOne]

That's why I want to hear what you all think of his record thus far. Not his tweets, but his actions.

That's been the issue all along, hasn't it?

The media stories are always, ALWAYS about his tweets.

Oh, I think a good example of media coverage of his actions would be the detention centers full of children.
That’s a tough one. I want him to be tough on illegal immigration and careful about the legal pathway as well, but that was unnecessary. Thankfully, Melania got him to reverse course.

Yes, that's true - so ok, 0.1% of the coverage is about his actions and not tweets. The articles were quite slanted of course, because ICE didn't have a whole lot of options for dealing with the flood of unaccompanied minors being sent across the border. That's the true tragedy but no one talked about that. Because then you'd have to admit that the villains of the piece are the profiteering coyotes and organized crime syndicates, plus the random well-meaning American fools who went down to Central American countries to spread the word about the refugee loophole and help organize the caravans.

[dualstow]

Yes, that's true - so ok, 0.1% of the coverage is about his actions and not tweets.

It depends on the news source. I would agree that much of the news people consume, especially television channels like CNN, focus on easy targets like tweets. And that, of course is a shame.

Of course news on his actions is out there for those who seek it out.

Here’s some more of the same Foreign Affairs article, since 0% is about his tweets.

Each aspect of the Trump administration’s supposed new strategic triangle is misconceived, starting with Iran, a hostile would-be regional hegemon with a well-advanced nuclear program that Washington has been trying to contain for decades. In 2015, U.S. and European diplomats made a major breakthrough by negotiating the ... JCPOA, a classic multilateral arms control agreement ...
By the time Trump entered office, the agreement was functioning well in practice, and its inspections provided a high degree of confidence that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The deal was hardly perfect.
...
So the obvious next step for any incoming administration would have been to build on the JCPOA and tackle the other issues on the docket. Instead, in May 2018, overruling then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis and blatantly lying about Iran’s compliance, Trump shredded the agreement.

This was partly due to Trump’s personal obsession with Barack Obama. Anything his predecessor had done had to be undone, and the Iran deal was Obama’s signature accomplishment.

[shekels]

Yes, that's true - so ok, 0.1% of the coverage is about his actions and not tweets.

It depends on the news source. I would agree that much of the news people consume, especially television channels like CNN, focus on easy targets like tweets. And that, of course is a shame.

Of course news on his actions is out there for those who seek it out.

Here’s some more of the same Foreign Affairs article, since 0% is about his tweets.

Each aspect of the Trump administration’s supposed new strategic triangle is misconceived, starting with Iran, a hostile would-be regional hegemon with a well-advanced nuclear program that Washington has been trying to contain for decades. In 2015, U.S. and European diplomats made a major breakthrough by negotiating the ... JCPOA, a classic multilateral arms control agreement ...
By the time Trump entered office, the agreement was functioning well in practice, and its inspections provided a high degree of confidence that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

The deal was hardly perfect.
...
So the obvious next step for any incoming administration would have been to build on the JCPOA and tackle the other issues on the docket. Instead, in May 2018, overruling then Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Secretary of Defense James Mattis and blatantly lying about Iran’s compliance, Trump shredded the agreement.

This was partly due to Trump’s personal obsession with Barack Obama. Anything his predecessor had done had to be undone, and the Iran deal was Obama’s signature accomplishment.

From what I understand the JCPOA was with IRAN the US, France, UK, China, Russia and Germany.
So if the U.S pulls out, that still leaves France, UK, China, Russia and Germany and Iran in the agreement right?

Or is the agreement null and void at that point?

If Iran still kept the agreement with the other remaining countries what is the problem?

Except now Iran has broken from a key component.

[dualstow]

oh, Shekels, the agreement is a’shambles.
I’ll write more later, but with the U.S. pulling out, Iran understandably had no reason to continue to keep up their end of the bargain. (which they had been doing).

[dualstow]

Well, multiple reports say they had.

[I Shrugged]

That’s kind of like what Shekels said.
Did we not know corruption existed before Trump came along? Insisting Obama was not American and then running for office. Did we not know of corruption before that?

The American public, I think, had very little idea about how smelly the swamp is.
I consider myself informed, and I had no idea about some of the inter-agency spying, dirty tricks, and so forth.

Likewise, I don't think the average American saw the media as being house organs of the Dem party. I did, but it wasn't as extreme as now. Now everyone can see it if they care to. At least, a great many people will see it.

It just seems to me that a Pandora's box has been opened. I always rooted for this and thought that if it happened, it would delegitimize the government, and that would be a good thing. Now I'm not as sure about the last part. Although still leaning that way.

[WiseOne]

Well, multiple reports say they had.

I've read both, so I genuinely don't know.

Is it really possible for a President, acting completely alone, to shred a signed treaty without (at the very least) some agreement within his administration? I have always thought there is an untold story here, and version we've been fed is way too simplistic. As, unfortunately, is the case with most things.

[shekels]

oh, Shekels, the agreement is a’shambles.
I’ll write more later, but with the U.S. pulling out, Iran understandably had no reason to continue to keep up their end of the bargain. (which they had been doing).

So I would guess the other countries in this agreement were window dressing.
I can see why the agreement was not all that great for the U.S.
But I just don't see that the U.S. is the only player here with Iran.
There were other countries involved.

Maybe I am looking at it as us vs them.
But why couldn't the agreement still go on without the U.S. involvement?

[dualstow]

Well, multiple reports say they had.

I've read both, so I genuinely don't know.

Is it really possible for a President, acting completely alone, to shred a signed treaty without (at the very least) some agreement within his administration? I have always thought there is an untold story here, and version we've been fed is way too simplistic. As, unfortunately, is the case with most things.

Isn’t that the President’s M.O., WiseOne? He does what he wants and, when told “You can’t do that, Mr President” one too many times, then he fires that person for insubordination and replaces him or her. He’s made it clear that he doesn’t put much credence into intelligence agencies, either.

More later, when I get rid of my houseguest.

[dualstow]

oh, Shekels, the agreement is a’shambles.
I’ll write more later, but with the U.S. pulling out, Iran understandably had no reason to continue to keep up their end of the bargain. (which they had been doing).

So I would guess the other countries in this agreement were window dressing.
I can see why the agreement was not all that great for the U.S.
But I just don't see that the U.S. is the only player here with Iran.
There were other countries involved.

Maybe I am looking at it as us vs them.
But why couldn't the agreement still go on without the U.S. involvement?

While I wouldn’t discount the European players as window dressing, the U.S. is obvoiusly weighty. Trump is ultimately the one putting a stranglehold on the Iranian economy. He even threatened European countries who want to buy oil from Iran. The treaty is a piece of paper. Who knows what Trump is going to do from day to day?

[dualstow]

A side question for Libertarian666:

Since you believe Trump is doing a good job, what is the main reason you don’t own less gold and more stocks?

Presidential terms are too short?
This is beyond his powers and abilities?
Other___

[dualstow]

The only part I don’t get is

gold gives me the greatest ability to choose when I take gains and losses

It’s not equal to holding shares of the overall stock market? (e.g. VTI)

[Libertarian666]

The only part I don’t get is

gold gives me the greatest ability to choose when I take gains and losses

It’s not equal to holding shares of the overall stock market? (e.g. VTI)

Does that pay dividends? Can you specify individual shares when you sell? (I'm not joking; I actually don't know).

[Kbg]

The Iran stuff was classic Bolton. It will be interesting to see how things workout going forward. Also, no one should ever think international law or treaties work anything like a law or regulation at lower levels. I don’t know, but I imagine the calculus was...yeah, the Iranians may be keeping the treaty but all this other stuff they are doing needs a counter and this treaty isn’t helping in how we can respond...therefore, toss the treaty. We will tick off the Europeans, who cares. The Russians are with the Iranians in most Middle East issue, so ditto who cares. Side benefit of tossing the treaty, sends a message to the Iranians, game on.

[dualstow]

The only part I don’t get is

gold gives me the greatest ability to choose when I take gains and losses

It’s not equal to holding shares of the overall stock market? (e.g. VTI)

Does that pay dividends? Can you specify individual shares when you sell? (I'm not joking; I actually don't know).

(1) yes. (Ok, I think I see your point)
(2) You can if you arrange that with the brokerage. (I admit I don’t. I switched to average share cost).

[Libertarian666]

The only part I don’t get is

It’s not equal to holding shares of the overall stock market? (e.g. VTI)

Does that pay dividends? Can you specify individual shares when you sell? (I'm not joking; I actually don't know).

(1) yes. (Ok, I think I see your point)
(2) You can if you arrange that with the brokerage. (I admit I don’t. I switched to average share cost).

Ok. BTW, I have managed to stay in the 0% tax bracket for the last several years by balancing gains and losses between very old and more recent gold purchases, so this isn't just theoretical.

[dualstow]

That is actually very cool. If you can live off that (even partially) and manage a 0% rate, more power to you!

[Libertarian666]

That is actually very cool. If you can live off that (even partially) and manage a 0% rate, more power to you!

I only need about a 2% withdrawal rate after Social Security, so it's not too difficult.

[vnatale]

That is actually very cool. If you can live off that (even partially) and manage a 0% rate, more power to you!

And, I'm trying to remember. An excellent book that was recommended here regarding taxes and investing that I bought and read stated that if you could get at a 10% tax bracket or below then your capital gains rate would be zero? Remembering correctly?

Vinny