While the left continues to focus on irrelevant none-sense, Trump continues to focus on His America first agenda.

Yes he does. As every president has since Reagan started doing it.

Actually none of them did. It’s a subsidy, not free, and the rest of us pay for it.

There is like 6 or so ways. I think u-3 is the most commonly used number. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm

They've been cooking the books and skewing numbers for decades. And it's been real bad since Bush's crashes, trying to make the economy look good.

So the numbers may not be accurate, but you can still clearly see Trump beating the others. I bet at some point using these messed up metrics Trump will achieve a 0% unemployment. Which is utterly impossible if measured fairly, but would still say a lot.

A 0% unemployment rate would be bad. 4% means there are enough jobs for everyone who wants to work because, on average, 4% of the work force is between jobs. Anything less means there are not enough workers to meet needs.

That isn't a crisis that makes people go hungry and resort to crime though. I know one particular place where good workers are hard to come by and you know what?

1) The economy isn't imploded.

2) People get paid more.

I never said it would be a crisis. But it would cause companies to move jobs overseas where they can find the workforce they need. Those jobs might not come back when the US unemployment rate rises again.

What difference does that make? In the end, when measured by the same metric, Trump is doing much better than his predecessors.

You could make the case, for example, that measuring people who are unemployed after losing their jobs and not being able to find another isn't the full picture, but the point would remain that within that metric, Trump has the best track record.

2hsnp9.jpg (click to show) Upvote!

found a line graph on wikipedia and it tells a little bit different story

And here’s the full graph with title.

thanks i had just screenshotted the end because thats what was in the op
i thought about taking a bigger screenshot but too lazy and most of the graph isnt relevant to the op

Bingo

When you’re used to getting news as carefully edited sound bites from leftist media, you assume everyone else does too.

Of corse it doesn’t say what the graph represents. It’s probably the unemployment rate.

yeah it's the same statistics as the op it's just shown in relation to time rather than just who was president

How about last 35 months?

bbbut...bbbut...muh ...magic monkey Obongo did ALL that

Manufacturing jobs are down since trump took office.

Says who?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/06/07/75000-jobs-added-in-may-since-jan-2017-manufacturing-jobs-up-3-9-4-times-government-rate/#1dd6e2257d24

Says me. I could be wrong. Lol

According to the article I sited above, you are wrong.

anonymous = COWARD

your opinion means a lot.

Not really.

I think the point is that those are way more shitty dead end jobs than Obama. Some would argue a shit, dead end job is better than no jobs at all. Just some though...

And "impeachment charges?"

Nadler before vote: "We have heard enough evidence to make our case"
- Polls show Americans overall see it as a "bias impeachment" -
Nadler: "Wait, we have more evidence and witnesses that the Senate should call and now the reasons for impeachment are changing"

What a joke, hahaha

Congress has decided that the conduct described in the two Articles of Impeachment against Trump constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" pursuant to Art. II, Sec. IV. Source: The U.S. Constitution.

Since you don't like that I cite Wikipedia, this time, I will cite no less an esteemed "primary source" than the Heritage Foundation itself!

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/11/impeachment

The Heritage Foundation says:
"The near-unanimous view of constitutional commentators is that the House of Representatives' 'sole power' of impeachment is a political question and therefore not reviewable by the judiciary. The House is constitutionally obligated to base a bill of impeachment on the standards set out in Article II. (See Article II, Section 4.) However, the fact that the Constitution's text grants the House the 'sole power,' and the fact that such a review is not clearly within the Article III power of the federal judiciary indicate that this responsibility is the House's alone. The Supreme Court has found that the Senate's 'sole power" to try impeachments is not justiciable. Nixon v. United States (1993)."

Taking that thought a little further: Congress alone gets to define what constitutes impeachable conduct. To wit:

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/articles-of-impeachment-of-andrew-johnson/

"Although most people today assume that 'high Crimes and Misdemeanors' require that the president commit some indictable offense, the history of the phrase suggests a broader meaning. The Constitution invites debate about the scope of impeachment, and those subject to impeachment are most likely to insist on its narrowest application."

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson contained 11 Articles and they were not specifically titled. The headings of "Obstruction of Congress" or "abuse of power" are immaterial. The impeachable conduct is defined with greater specificity therein.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-obstruction-full-text-pdf-080185

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/articles-of-impeachment-trump-abuse-obstruction-full-text-pdf-080185

And at considerably greater length

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191216/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf

You’re using the same arguments as Trump’s lawyers, so you have that going for you

So what?

Nice Landslide you got there, ;)

And? 40-50% is an OK. Less than that is bad and more is great. With modern politics however, it would be hard for anyone to get an approval rating above 55-60%. Democrat’s hate Republicans and vice versa.

BOOOM

What a joke.

I'm blown away by your rebuttal of the Meme.
You thought really hard to come up with that response.

Now that Trump became president, the numbers are real and can be attributed to him..?? What a clown. (Although to be fair tons of people actually buy into his sh*t and actually make memes displaying it, so maybe they are the clowns.)

You're the clown Darko.

Don't get me wrong... I think it's great that Trump managed to not f*ck up a 7 year trend of declining unemployment.. I mean he really did a great job at not f*cking that up. 👍

You got nothing darko.
I'm shocked.

Considering that he was elected at the end of 2008, nearly right smack in the middle of the spike, I don't know what your point is...? Do people no longer believe Obama inherited sh*tty circumstances?

That seems pretty ludicrous dude... For Obama to stop unemployment at 7% he would've had to stop rising unemployment on a dime, literally the day he got elected... His policy would've had to have been vastly expanding government, hiring boatloads of people even before his own inauguration day.

I also find it interesting that you imply Obama's policy alone could've made this utterly impossible maneuver (during a period when the stock market was also taking a massive sh*t, no less).... but you go on to question what influence policy can even have within a complex system..... Policy has questionable influence but Obama could've immediately done it via policy?? Yes it is a complex system. Which is why the idea of one dude becoming president and his policy making an unemployment spike stop on a dime like that seems highly illogical. If I'm wrong and it's been done let me know. History matters. Charts and graphs matter. Yes they show what happened.... and when. Facts matter. Context matters. When a new president is elected it's not like America restarts with a blank slate each time.

And as far as limited govt.. sounds cool but this country is 300million+ and some of those "regulations" they're removing are for our protection...

Strawman? it's right there in the chart. Unemployment had been rising and was at 7% when Obama got elected.. Therefore for it to stop/peak at 7%, Obama's policy wouldve had to stop the rising unemployment immediately.. on a dime.. in it's tracks.. flip of a switch.

There's a difference between saying the peak could've theoretically happened at any point in time and saying Obama's policy could've caused it to peak at 7%.

Maybe us leftists never understand the negative impact government action has on the economy because it's silly to say this policy or that policy made matters worse.

you're saying OBAMA'S POLICY could've stopped it. Yes theoretically it could've stopped for whatever reasons.. anywhere.. on a dime (or gradually slowed and then reversed)....but... IF... IF it had stopped at 7% where it was in November.. (when Obama got elected).. it would be "on a dime" (as far as economic timelines go) AND there's no frickin way Obama's policy could have caused it to stop there..... (Again.. unless Obama had immediately hired however many people it would've taken to move the unemployment needle or possibly injected a bunch of cash into some kind of job creation program that was immediately successful..) also technically idk if a president can even legally do anything before they are inaugurated..which would've been Jan 2009.. unemployment was already above 7% in December 2008.. maybe you actually meant anywhere in the 7% range (ie 7.0%-7.9%)...? If not.. idk.. ask an economics professor why your claim is virtually if not literally impossible.

Ooh... So you're not saying that Obama's policy COULD have stopped it, you're saying that it MIGHT have stopped it..

Ok.
🙄

Wow.. you're realllly running with it aren't you? Ok so how do you measure "the economy"?

So it's not that Obama's policy could have made it better, you're saying that it might have made it better. And also government interference makes things worse.
👍

You're retarded.

Trump said they're fake.. not me.
I know it's hard for you but try to keep up.