Trump Deserves Credit for the Strong Economy

email Email

Why do public opinion surveys show discontent with President Trump’s handling of the economy at a time of record highs in the stock market and record lows in unemployment? The new Gallup Poll gives Trump his highest ratings on the economy, but still shows a clear majority of voters disapproving of his economic record despite the steady growth in the 10 months of his presidency.

This reflects a liberal tendency to put ideology above practical results, but it also reflects continued discomfort with aspects of Donald Trump’s polarizing public personality. The President should avoid public feuds and distracting Twitter storms while focusing on the jobs and growth agenda that got him elected in the first place. Meanwhile, his GOP colleagues in Congress must pass tax reform to keep the economy booming while giving the administration the credit it deserves for sweeping deregulation, and pro-business policies on taxes and energy that are producing real results for the American people.

email Email

Comments (45)

Leave a comment
  1. Jim Bird  •  Nov 21, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    Yes, all of America knows that Trump is the ONLY reason the economy is booming. He has virtually no help from Republicans, and of course, zero help from the Leftists. Secondarily, the voters who put him in office (and more voters who will return him to office next time) have saved the country from the tyrannical regime of the Clintinista’s. Cuba would have their centrifuges spinning by now.

  2. Ty  •  Nov 22, 2017 at 2:13 am

    Michael, if you could replace Trump with virtually any republican or democrat, and have an identical economy, then Trump does not deserve credit for the economy. The economy is on auto pilot. And before the peanut gallery comes in talking up some mythical companies so enthusiastic for Trumps presence they are hiring more and deciding to expand, look at this chart.

    switch the axis to 10 years. Since the 2008 crash, we've had one of the longest growth periods in American history, not particularly high growth, but relatively steady growth. This is more to do with larger macroeconomic trends, and that growth is incredibly unequal. But to sit there and credit Trump or Obama for that? Ok, they get credit for not tanking things and making it worse, but they are not to be given credit for things that have nothing to do with them. Zero economic policy from congress has made it through so far, or healthcare policy as of this writing. Trump has done nothing but sign some executive orders and thrown tantrums and self sabotage. The biggest thing this shows is how little an actual clown in power effects the economic prosperity of a nation.

    • Jim bird  •  Nov 22, 2017 at 12:14 pm

      “The economy is on auto pilot” Obama for 8 years at 1.5 % growth. – Trump, with zero help from both sides of the aisle, is averaging over 3%. Why the self abuse?!?!

      • Ty  •  Nov 22, 2017 at 3:54 pm

        Obama came into office inheriting an economy that was in free fall, losing hundreds of thousands of jobs in the aftermath of the housing crises and financial collapse, growth was negative during most of the first 2 years while the economy bottomed out and climbed back. It's in the chart link I posted above. If you include that in the average, it lowers the average over the course of 8 years.

        Or as a deceit filled conservative would say, shut your damn mouth liberal, don't bring up a complete picture of reality, my narrow slice is more favorable to my narrative.

      • Mick  •  Dec 1, 2017 at 3:16 pm

        Ty you are missing the point . Presidents have always received credit or blame for the economy while they were in office by the American people . President Obama received credit , if I recall the Congress he worked with , well the Congress did not work with him . Our economy did better , not as well as now of course , but it did move forward . President Obama got credit for that and put any other divisive democrat in the Presidency that had a Congress that would not work with him or her and the growth would have continued also if their hands were tied . . Funny thing about America , get government out of the way and we seem to do quite well . But the point is if Trump was as diplomatic in his divisive rhetoric of the left , right , basically everyone , as past Presidents were he would be receiving credit for a good economy as past Presidents did regardless if their was merit in it or not .

    • Ty is a hater  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 12:05 am

      Ty, companies plan based on what they think will happen in the future. The market does the same thing. If they think Trump will have pro-business policies they will plan accordingly. This could be one reason for the economy we are seeing now. This argument was used over and over when the economy picked up before Clinton took office in 1993. Yes, there is a cycle, but presidential elections affect it too.

    • Ty is a hater  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 12:08 am

      Hey Hater,

      You are still calling conservatives selfish. Do you need me to find the statistics that show that republicans/conservatives give more time and money to charity, give more blood and tip more? Just let me know. I'd be happy to help you there.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 12:38 am

        Excellent point… and all too true.
        Ty conflates leftist's advocacy of government theft of the so-called "rich" as charitable giving. He will always advocate for others to pay for his Unconstitutional Government-Utopia. In his sick mind, that's "caring".

      • Ty  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 1:03 am

        Conservatives give more to charity (heavily weighted by their church), but have much less support for policies like universal healthcare and some re distributive programs like social security. The latter things are more arms length, but they scale better than charity and do more actual good.

        More elderly were pulled out of poverty and destitution by social security than living with and wasting away with their children… if they had children. More elderly were allowed to live and thrive because we socialized the cost of their medical care than if we left the cost of private insurance to 60+ year olds to the private market.

        Charity affinity tracks perfectly well with my impression of conservatives, where something literally tends to have to happen to them directly, affect them directly, or come into their view directly by a link with a church or other social venue. Childrens hospitals are often well funded in cities, when it comes to innocent darling children the font of charity flows, some adult that is on the margins that needs help too? Watch the concern wane.

        Charity as a substitute for policy that scales is an absolute disaster. There was someone making the rounds against foreign aid awhile back called Dambisa Moyo, in it she talked about the limits of what foreign aid could bring. A far bigger factor in lifting people higher was something conservatives used to believe in before the Trumpsters took over.

        Trade. Trade scales. cash transfer style redistribution scales. Charity? One of the least effective methods of helping, but it certainly makes people feel better and more noble. Conservatives probably need that most of all since they spend so much of their time in larger society not trying to expand the circle of concern for their fellow citizenry, preferring to only gift a few resources to the narrow ranges of causes that have personally moved them.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 7:02 am

        Yes… and government is so effective at EVERYTHING. Bureaucrats can handpick their favorite causes, because they KNOW BEST, plus line their pockets a along the way. They can play Santa Claus with our hard-earned money. It will be so great! Plus, they won't squander million$ if not billion$ in waste, abuse and fraud. They will spend our money so carefully. Government and the angel-politicians are so beautiful and perfect… They know what's best for us, and how to reach Utopia. Let's totally free them from our Constitution, so they can scale and redistribute perfection at a rate and effectiveness this world has never before seen. Their policies will perfect this imperfect world.
        Ooooh boy, I can't wait!!!

    • Ty needs help  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 12:26 am

      When you are talking about selfishness, you are talking about people who will not give away money. Selfish people don't give much to their church either. So, you did not refute my point. Also, selfishness has nothing to do with effective giving. So you lose their too. And when you remove church giving, conservatives still give about as much as liberals. So you fail on so many accounts. And why didn't you mention that conservatives give more blood? How will you try to weasel out of that one? Conservatives are less selfish and actually care more about people than liberals. Who cares more, the person who actually takes their own time and money to help or the person who just wants the government to handle it, mostly with other peoples' money?

      Yes, conservatives often don't support universal health care and other similar policies. That does not mean they are selfish.
      As is easily proven, they are less selfish than liberals. It means that conservatives want to solve problems in a different manner than handing more power to the government. Conservatives think it is best if the family, churches and local community have more power and make more decisions rather than the federal government. It is as easy to understand as that. If you weren't so bigoted against conservatives (thanks Ty Sr.), you could see it. And then you wouldn't have to try to dehumanize conservatives by calling them "little vindictive maggots" and other similar nazi sounding epithets.

      And all of your arguments about charity not being effective, etc. Pure nonsense. I know you don't like private charity, probably because so many of them are religious based, and you are an anti-Christian bigot. But that doesn't negate all of the good they do.

      • Ty  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 6:38 pm

        Conservatives are not selfish, so long as the people that need help are within their circle of concern. That is their problem. They will die for their families, go bankrupt trying to help a friend or colleague, this might explain why they give more too. If your circle of concern is smaller it might make sense you have more bandwidth and desire to give to the people and causes that are closer to you.

        People that are sick and need blood? Those are people deserving of help. Someone on drugs? Outside their own community? I doubt the same concern would be there.

        Liberals cast a wider net of concern, and the policies they back tend to scale wider and include the kinds of people conservatives are all too happy to turn their callous indifferent backs towards. Not because they don't care about people, because they care less about "those" people.

        Look at illegal immigrants. The hatred and bile towards that group is higher from the conservative camp. Do you deny this? Who do you think is more angered as a group about some illegals using the emergency rooms for treatment? Conservatives or liberals?

        You all are more likely to see outside entities as the other, as not deserving and WORTHY of your grace. Inside the circle? Showered with love, outside? Watch that conservative indifference grow.

        Remember when those conservative representatives voted against Sandy recovery funds? Just a bunch of new jersey liberals getting aid after all, and now California was shut out of additional funds for disaster relief in the latest relief package. That kind of tribal ME and MINE attitude is less likely to occur with liberals. We don't care, as much, that people are not part of our tribe when it comes to treating the sick. And that aspect makes the liberal attitude superior.

        This does not describe all conservatives of course, but the most tribal people are on YOUR side, and the scope of who is deigned to be worthy of conservative help via charity or government is the tipoff. And now that I have written this out, an aspect of conservative HATRED of government programs becomes clearer to me. Perhaps part of the greater animus is precisely because how universal the scope is, that must infuriate those more tribalist minds your side is infected with.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 9:14 pm

        If by "Tribal" you mean Americans, then YES, we Conservatives care more for US American citizens, you f'ing moron. And that is PRECISELY why we get angered when illegals are stealing from our resources.
        The damn thing about it, is you dumbass liberals can't connect the dots between high healthcare costs and illegals.

        Leftists don't care more. They only care to the extent that they can get others, preferably "rich people" to pay for it.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 10:02 pm

        Dear God-Like Government

        Can you please steal money from "rich people", on my behalf?
        Will you please use that money to help fund the killing of babies and
        deliver us to Utopia? Through this theft, I can feel good in my ability
        to empower our God-like leaders to steal from those who have too much and
        give to to those who have less… Utopia, aka Heaven on Earth.

    • Ty needs counseling  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 2:28 am

      Whether it is Tyrone, Tyrell, or Tyrese, I too would be upset with my daddy for giving me such a horrible name. But I wouldn't descend into becoming a purveyor or pathological hatred for people just based on disagreements over political issues. Have you gotten help for those daddy issues?

    • Ty is a bigot  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 11:20 pm

      You keep bringing up disaster relief. I doubt you are even characterizing these things correctly because everything is colored through your hatred. Also, sometimes a bill has something attached to it that people don't want to vote for. You understand that happens, right? But hey, I'll assume you aren't lying or mis characterizing what happened…. Ty, the reason that democrats would be less likely to oppose disaster relief, is because it fits their ideology of spend spend spend, everything will be better if the federal government just throws money at things. So yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if they support most disaster relief and republicans sometimes oppose it. It aligns with the democrats ideology and does not align with republican ideology. Now let's flip it around – Conservatives generally oppose aborting any child, not just their "group" or whatever your nonsensical theory is. Liberals – they don't care about those unborn children. Huh?!?!? How can that be??!?! Conservatives only care about the people like them!!!! And liberals cast a wide net!?!? There goes your stupid, bigoted theory. Also, if you really care about somebody, you help them personally. You don't wait for the federal government to do it. If I didn't care about somebody, I'd sit back and say …. let's let the government help them. It is easy to "care" broadly when you don't really have any skin in the game. Everything you think about conservatives is just idiotic. You take the worst of them and then broad brush that onto all conservatives. That is dishonest. It would be very easy to do that to libtards too. Oh, and what about Harvey Weinstein? ha ha ha. The great democrat cash bundler. It was widely know what a scumbag that guy was and they just turned a blind eye because he was a cash cow. Ha ha ha. That is the democrat/liberal party. See? We can both play that game.

      • Ty  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 2:01 am

        Liberals pay taxes, just like conservatives, we have a say in how those taxes are spent and where we want to put resources. We tend to favor spending some of the tax revenue on programs to TRY to help people, conservatives tend to want that money back because they want to pick and choose the winners and losers of aide. And why? Because of their greater ethos of fire and judgment of who is and is not worthy of aide. They will be DAMNED if they will support any dimes of THEIR tax dollars to go to some cause do not support or some people they deem unfit.

        My brush IS broad, but it's not off target. I have repeatedly stated this is not all conservatives, but this is a numbers game. You have MORE people concerned about their own in groups vs their perceived out groups. You see it in attitudes towards illegal immigrants, where there is CLEARLY a greater animus towards the PEOPLE crossing among the conservative population because of the zero sum game mentality so many of you are saddled with. Only so many resources to go around, treating one of THEM leaves less for OUR people. It's not even wrong, it's a true statement, liberals understand the costs too, but we are more willing to tolerate more of it because UNLIKE large chunks of the conservative population we see them as human BEINGS and not just a gaggle of CRIMINALS and THUGS like some common thieves to be cast out like refuse and trash. We will still man the borders, still send people back, but the lengths we will go to uproot families that have ALREADY gotten through and been here for DECADES is less than a sizable set of the puss filled ROT at the core of the conservative movement. The nativists and tribalists, the ones most concerned about their way of life being tainted and supplanted, they want the mexicans OUT, mass deportation squads, or sour the milk and fine employers to make it near impossible for anyone to stay. Purge the unclean, the maggots, the insects. Not people, not human beings, not GOOD people like us. You do not have that kind of anti "other" animus on the liberal side until you get to the deepest trenches of left wing concentration, some universities where conservatives are screamed off campus. That is one of the dark hearts of the conservative movement, own it, or deny it. Won't stop me from shining a light on just how vicious and awful that segment the conservative movement truly is.

        The abortion thing has been done to death, we are not going to see eye to eye for reasons that have been explained before. I'd save ET over a human fetus a hundred times over. I care less about human life, than the life of a sentient self aware being. And no, I do not consider a cluster of cells a human BEING. If you consider it the same, then as I've said before, hold to that standard and follow that logic to its natural conclusions. If you live in texas, I expect doctors and mothers who practice abortions once made illegal to be put to DEATH for murder. IF you truly see no difference, then let the blood of those MURDERERS run red in the streets. Don't be a coward. Follow your supposed beliefs to the end, and if you don't want to do that, then cut the crap. Stop PRETENDING to see a fetus as the same. And if you do, then get to killing the transgressors. Kill the mothers and doctors, take that righteous vengeance. i REJECT those standards, I think they are trash. Don't like that? Tough.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 7:56 am


        The type of spending you advocate for, does NOT HELP PEOPLE… It creates generational, government-dependent slaves. The amount of spending you advocate for, has created unsustainable debt that will hurt almost EVERYONE… well, except for those government-gods you created.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 10:28 am

        And Ty… you stupid, soulless, leftist.
        NOBODY has to "pretend" that a fetus is the same as full-grown, fully developed human.
        Just because differences exist, does NOT give you the right to kill.
        Ty' "logic"… Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same…. stop pretending they are. Because they are different, it should be legal to kill one group.

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 11:26 am

        Hey look… there's an old guy and a young guy. They're different, don't pretend they aren't.
        Let's kill the old guy… He's soon to be a burden on someone.
        It's ok… We will get some lawyer to find the right to kill old people in The Constitution.
        Then we will pretend that killing isn't killing and we will all sleep well at night

    • Ty is a bigot  •  Nov 25, 2017 at 11:31 pm

      Remember the Iraq wars? Republicans supported freeing Kuwait and they also supported deposing a dictator and giving 25 million people a chance at democracy? Remember that? Was Kuwait part of that mythical conservative "tribe?" (Vietnam? South Korea? Ha ha ha). Remember when republicans cared about those Iraqis under the thumb of the brutal dictator Hussein? Remember who opposed the Iraq war, mostly when it became convenient politically? Oh yeah, it was the wide net of caring democrats/liberals. Ha ha ha. You see, if it aligns with their ideology conservatives will care about people far outside of their "group" and when it doesn't align with their ideology, democrats don't want to help.

      Hey, I have sponsored a child in Africa, Cental America, and Asia for one of those montly payments where you pay for most of their food and education and basic child care. Three kids that don't appear to be in my "group" at all. How many have you sponsored? What have you done? Let's compare who cares more.

      • Ty  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 2:20 am

        Foreign policy is an interesting case. I totally agree that especially during and after the Vietnam war, large chunks of the left became anti war in a way that to me mirrored the ideology of radical libertarians, paleocons, and of course, John Galt.

        I used to be a liberal neocon for a brief period, against the Iraq war initially for reasons of WMD, moved to support it for reasons of trying to gift democracy and topple dictators and allow freedom of thought and worship and governance. I NEVER bought into the arguments that we had no business stepping into some other conflict because it was not our business in part BECAUSE of my liberal ideals of universalism. I wanted to support human rights, not just human interests (like the more pure amoral realists), and it did not matter that the people with a boot on their necks were not American, and were Shia and Kurds, I thought if we had some power to intervene militarily, it was worth the effort to try and spark a positive change…

        Turned out roughly, my attitude now is more mixed. I think Japan and S. Korea turned out well, and I use those examples as beacons, what the US wants is not to enslave, but to foster vibrant societies like S. Korea. But the host county and population matters too, and some more realism mixed in with the optimism is warranted for future interventions. Many conservatives were on the interventionist side, most jumped on with the fear talk of wmd after 911, but others bought into the arguments about democracy promotion. Those days, are gone. You know who clearly does not give a flying BLANK about any of that? The leader of your party.

        Large swaths of the left and the right have retreated back into more of an isolationist posture, not at the elite level, but in the rank and file, there seems to be a clear weariness of major foreign entanglements. The use of the American military used to be a clear font of conservative support, it extended beyond the soldiers themselves, but also into whatever particular engagements they happened to be involved in, like Iraq. It's one of the few examples where conservatives used to want to use government for the sake of someone else and it was people on the left who brought up concerns over efficacy of interventions, and COSTS! (on foreign policy, liberals turned into libertarians!). And of course, many on the left deny that the interventions ever had any noble purpose. They say Iraq was just about oil, or contracts, or most cynically of all, that the right just enjoys war for the sake of it. And on the right side, I think the rank and file are drifting back towards paleocon style isolationism.

    • Tru  •  Dec 1, 2017 at 9:26 am

      I agree. The economy had started rising before Obama left office, I'm hard put to name one thing Trump has done that has any direct effect. As for the proposed tax law, I would be really interested to see Medved name one instance in American history that shows where trickle down has actually worked.

  3. Rizzo  •  Nov 22, 2017 at 5:40 pm

    Donald Trump is fond of saying Americans are living through the worst recovery in modern times.
    He blames President Obama for the sluggish economy and claims he can do far better.
    "Now look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression," Trump said in the first debate. His running mate Mike Pence mentioned it in the vice presidential debate Tuesday night.
    Trump is right if you look solely at the average rate of growth during this rebound versus prior ones.
    "In terms of the average pace of GDP growth, this is the slowest expansion on record," says Lakshman Achuthan, co-founder of the Economic Cycle Research Institute.
    The U.S. economy has only grown 2% a year since it bottomed out in June 2009. That's far below the typical growth in rosy times of over 4% a year that the U.S. has experienced since World War II. It's even below the rather sluggish rebound during President George W. Bush's tenure of 2.7%.
    So it's a fair statement.

  4. Truth hurts  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 1:18 am

    Economies are large ships that don’t turn on a dime. Trump simply hasn’t been office that long, and the economic indicators were all in an upward trajectory when he entered office. Obama had the worst economy since the Great Depression handed to him. In fact it took much longer to recover from the depression. Obama left office in what economists refer to as full employment. Wages always come last in recoveries. It is, of course, the GOP, including Medhead that wants to make it a point to make sure that president Blacky McBlackinstein accomplished nothing, but he did. But outside the hyperbolic echo chamber GOPers life in, it’s not so. All presidents accomplish something important. Bet you couldn’t name the huge accomplishment under Buchanan, our worst president

  5. Rizzo  •  Nov 23, 2017 at 8:21 am

    Obama accomplished plenty, my poor little leftists, anti-Semite clown.

    The number of long-term unemployed Americans under Obama in Jan. 2016 was 761,000 higher than at the start of the Great Recession.
    For about 3 1/2 years of Obama's first 4 years in office, unemployment was over 8%.

    The federal debt more than doubled — rising 116 percent — and big annual deficits continued under Obama.
    -"Today, I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited in half by the end of my first term in office.” — Obama, Feb. 23, 2009

    Food Stamp recipients up 42%

    Home ownership down 3.8%

    Federal Spending +11.8%

    Analysis – FAILURE

  6. Nani Tavares  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 5:44 pm

    "Michael, if you could replace Trump with virtually any republican or democrat, and have an identical economy, then Trump does not deserve credit for the economy."

    Ok, FIRST sentence and you already lost. No one else could have brought the stock market shooting upward and thru that, the economy turning around. Those who make or break our economy, the REAL movers and shakers, BELIEVED Trump. He is also the reason that even without a wall, coyotes are having a bad year. Why companies are returning to America and the employment is improving. If you don't get this, you really have no idea how the stock market works.

    But then you are a liberal and liberals have no concept of the real world. There is a reason why there isn't one successful socialist/communist nation. Listen carefully for here in lies the truth. In order to accomplish liberal ideals, freedoms need to be sacrificed and freedoms are the fuel that powers humanity's ability to survive, to thrive, to grow.

    • Ty  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 6:04 pm

      I think the entire nation is lost if the people electing those in charge are as credulous as you and Michael want the rest of us to be.

      You bought that line about Trump the savior, with his heavenly glow and mere existence in office bringing renewed vigor and growth to the nation. I wish I could sell things to people that easy to sucker, but I suppose Trump has that locked up with the Republican base. Just like Roy "she's only 14" Moore.

      We have plenty of questionable people in our base on the left too, but whenever I despair I always have the example of the right to look to. For that I have to thank you.

      • Nani Tavares  •  Nov 27, 2017 at 12:08 pm

        Ty, don’t you have anything in the stock market? I am starting to lean toward Rizzo and Jim who questions your age. Ok, let me try to explain how the economy is dependent on those who play the market in a way you can comprehend. (I KNOW Rizzo, Ty may be too young to get this or too Left indoctrinated but I find it incredulous that he doesn’t get it). Last Christmas the cool gift was the hatching creature egg. By the last week before Christmas, this $50 gift was being sold on eBay for over $400! Did it get better? Was it being remade in expensive material? No the hike in price was due to consumer PERCEPTION of value and no amount of “honey, it’s really not a big deal” could change ones little girl’s mind. Trump represented the end to stifling regulations, the start of pro-business incentatives. He was like a supermarket moving into a community of health watching people starving for fluffy bread dripping with butter and melted cheese. After 8 years of an administration who ignored and sometimes out and out attacked the people who took all the risks and provided jobs, a new man came to town with every intention of welcoming business HOME. EVERY time Trump pushed back and fought, they saw a guy capable of fighting and winning. So they bet and bet, the stock market broke records, and that $30 thousand stock is now worth $4 BILLION. Everyone wants in. And they bring jobs and prosperity with them, Does one really want to find out what would to our economy if there is no Trump?

      • Rizzo  •  Nov 27, 2017 at 2:51 pm

        Brilliant Nani, just brilliant!
        Let's watch Ty's purposely ignorant response.

    • Rizzo  •  Nov 26, 2017 at 9:58 pm

      Excellent post Nani! These leftists either don't know, or don't care… but, you are exactly right, the greater the power vested in government, the smaller the circle of freedom becomes for us.

      • Truth hurts  •  Dec 4, 2017 at 12:15 am

        James Levine conductor and Jewish molester?

  7. Rizzo  •  Nov 28, 2017 at 9:29 am

    Has anyone else noticed that the frequency of Ty's comments have greatly diminished? I wonder if his Mom made him go get a job?

    • Rizzo  •  Nov 28, 2017 at 1:51 pm

      Dayum! Ty went and got a 9 to 5, like he's all growed-up.

    • Tru  •  Dec 2, 2017 at 11:16 am

      No what happens on sites like this is that people like Ty get bored with the thin, abusive, and ignorant responses and just go somewhere else.

  8. Tru  •  Dec 1, 2017 at 9:21 pm

    I read this entire thread, and it was disheartening to read Ty's comments, which were thoughtful, honest, and challenging. I could see that he spent considerable time at it, and personally, I was grateful for that.

    What was stunning was the venom, insult, and mostly lacking in argument and persuasion skills. I could see that it was rapidly playing to my prejudices about the right, in particular, Trump congregations, – lots of rage, little information.

    Thanks, Ty.

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 2, 2017 at 9:49 am

      What more information would you like?
      Ty is for killing babies. Were you convinced by his arguments?
      Ty is for open boarders. Do you agree with that?
      Ty would like cradle to grave protection for all who want it. Is that sustainable and good?
      Ty denounces conventional religion, while worshipping Washington DC. Do you see any inconsistencies?
      Ty is for having government steal from those who are productive and hard-working, and give to his favorite "charities"? Where's the morality in that?
      Ty is basically a run-of-the-mill leftist. That's not intended to be venomous or insulting, but truthful, and fact-based. If you prefer his worn-out ideas, then I guess you will be persuaded by what he spews. However, if you are open-minded and value truth, personal responsibility, individual freedom, rule of law, and the right to self-determination, then I ask you to look deep within. I encourage you to reject the totalitarian mindset of the left. Help stop the left from their further destruction of American Exceptionalism.

      • Tru  •  Dec 2, 2017 at 11:17 am

        Ty never said any of those things and you know it. No wonder he got bored.

      • Rizzo  •  Dec 2, 2017 at 11:56 am

        Do I really have to go back and cut-n-paste ALL of the evidence, because you are too lazy to read and apparently too dense to interpret?

        I would to hear your interpretation of the leftist and his anti-American agenda.

      • Ty  •  Dec 3, 2017 at 9:50 pm

        Correct. At some point I just leave the ridiculous charges to stand on their own and let others judge their merits. If the conservative peanut gallery reads it and eats it up, let them. If anyone is dumb enough to take his warped interpretations of my positions as representative of my actual views, I'd rather let them continue to fling scat at the wall.

  9. Nani Tavares  •  Dec 5, 2017 at 12:11 am

    Ty, the drop in the stock market when it was wrongly (wishfully) reported that Trump was going to jail PROVED how Trump is responsible for the gains in our economy. Are you embarrassed?

    • Rizzo  •  Dec 5, 2017 at 6:58 pm

      Good question. However, to be embarrassed, you have to have some level of self-awareness.
      Ty has exhibited no such ability, as he has been more than happy to showcase his ignorance and flat-out stupidity on this website.

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn