Actually, it *is* so. Yes, anti-vaxxers are also part of the problem--I sometimes have to put up with their nonsense at some of the meetings which I attend with @Notabarbiegirl --but there are definitely kids whose vaccines are neither complete nor up-to-date. We received letters from both our son's elementary school and our daughter's junior high school a couple of years ago stating so.
The U.S. is in much better shape than most countries on the planet in almost every respect, and even among our biggest problems, they're usually even more severe in other countries. But I see no reason to temper my complaints on those grounds. I have very high expectations for my country and very high hopes for its future. It's not good enough for our corruption level, for example, to merely be lower than China's; that's not a very high bar.
I am not suggesting that anyone temper their complaints. I was merely pointing out that over-exaggerating the problems here makes the situation sound worse than it actually is; that is not an accurate representation of reality.
Giving to and sharing with others who have less than you do is admirable; giving to others so much that you cannot pay your own bills and your own refrigerator runs empty is foolish.
I am probably the only person not on the left side of the aisle who even dares mention the a-word.
I'm not sure what Bushs economy has to do with Obamas or what it has to do with Trumps. Trump has a different set of economic ideas from stock Republicans like the Bushes. His influence seems to be lasting, so hopefully this stays the norm.
20 months is more long-lasting than 8 years?? With an infinitely worse starting slate?? How is there not an innate advantage to inheriting a stable economy vs. a completely broken one??
I gave some credence to the Obama Legacy Effect about 6 months into Trump's presidency. We're years into it now, this is Trump's economy. Even CNN can't deny it's been a success on his part.
*sigh* Typically, the President has absolutely *nothing* to do with the economy whatsoever. The House and the Fed *do* have an impact via monetary and fiscal policy.
What is typical, or rather, what is said to be typical, is not what is necessarily true in every case. Trump has made intervention into the economy one of the bigger features of his tenure, and for better or worse (likely better, since the numbers are up) this effects investor and business confidence. Also big policies, like Obamacare and the Iraq War, are going to effect the economy. Not making good trade deals, or having the perception of such, is going to effect the economy.
I think rather than saying Presidents have nothing to do with the economy, it's a lot more sensible to say that they influence it, but not control it.
Actually, it *is* so. Yes, anti-vaxxers are also part of the problem--I sometimes have to put up with their nonsense at some of the meetings which I attend with @Notabarbiegirl --but there are definitely kids whose vaccines are neither complete nor up-to-date. We received letters from both our son's elementary school and our daughter's junior high school a couple of years ago stating so.
Actually, it *is* so. Yes, anti-vaxxers are also part of the problem--I sometimes have to put up with their nonsense at some of the meetings which I attend with @Notabarbiegirl --but there are definitely kids whose vaccines are neither complete nor up-to-date. We received letters from both our son's elementary school and our daughter's junior high school a couple of years ago stating so.
Proof?
In the UK only areas with people coming from countries where TB has not been irradicated are being offered vacination.
Consequently, we are now seeing increases in cases of TB. And of course, should anybody without that background come into contact with them, they are offered nothing. So when students attend university, for instance, we have the situation where only some are protected. And with frequent vacations/business between the "home" country and the UK, indiginous UK people are at risk.
TB was irradicated in the UK until the large scale immigration we have suffered over the last couple of decades.
Clearly, I don't have those notices from the schools any more--we have moved twice since then and those letters were of no importance to us at the time. That being said, communicable disease rates among children from higher-risk areas still remain elevated even though that isn't their fault--the children are not the ones who have made their living situation a living hell. On the other hand, I am not going to *prove* that one such individual who was placed in our area and who attended the junior high alongside our daughter was the source of the head lice outbreak which occurred there in 2013; you may choose to accept that what I say about it is true or you may choose not to accept it.
On the other other hand, sometimes conditions in detention centers lead to increased risk of contracting communicable diseases; again, this is not the fault of the children involved. I presume that if a child has reached a detention center and there is no accompanying adult in charge of that minor that health care workers proceed with normal routine care without that adult's approval.
@WarChiefZeke I can agree with the "influence yet not control" sentiment re: Presidents and the economy.
Clearly, I don't have those notices from the schools any more--we have moved twice since then and those letters were of no importance to us at the time. That being said, communicable disease rates among children from higher-risk areas still remain elevated even though that isn't their fault--the children are not the ones who have made their living situation a living hell. On the other hand, I am not going to *prove* that one such individual who was placed in our area and who attended the junior high alongside our daughter was the source of the head lice outbreak which occurred there in 2013; you may choose to accept that what I say about it is true or you may choose not to accept it.
On the other other hand, sometimes conditions in detention centers lead to increased risk of contracting communicable diseases; again, this is not the fault of the children involved. I presume that if a child has reached a detention center and there is no accompanying adult in charge of that minor that health care workers proceed with normal routine care without that adult's approval.
I predicted at the start of Trump's presidency that the economy would continue at much the same rate as it had during the tail end of the Obama years. I predicted that unemployment would continue to hover around the same low level (4% to 5%) and GDP growth would continue to be the historical norm (about 2%). One year later, I did a review and found that these predictions were correct. I predicted that things might be a little different the year after, but now I think it'll be about the same. I'll do another review in January.
Since the recovery from the recession of 2008-2009, the economy has been steadily improving and leveling out to its normal level (2% growth is the norm; it's been about that level for centuries). Trump hasn't really done anything to change the economic system (I didn't think he would) and as a result, it's chugging along normally.
If you look at GDP growth over time, if you look at unemployment over time, the economy was in good shape years before Trump took office. He hasn't really changed that, nor has he delivered the 4% growth he promised, or even the 3% growth that others predicted. The closest thing has been near-3% growth in certain quarters of the year, which also happened under Obama.
Now that GDP growth is normal, inflation is not currently a problem, the stock market is strong, and unemployment is low, I think we need to tackle the remaining problems with economy: low wages, low benefits for workers, low job security, and high levels of student loan debt.
As far as how to accomplish those objectives, I think we need, more than anything else, much stronger unions to help workers bargain for higher wages and benefits and make it harder for companies to fire employees without cause. It's no coincidence that wages began stagnating at the same time unions became less common.
Seriously, who else is going to fight for worker rights besides unions? Congress could do it, but they won't--they aren't. Individual workers try, but a single worker alone doesn't have the bargaining power or the information to negotiate with a huge company on even ground. The company knows how much every worker is paid and how much money every worker makes them--this information is hidden from individual employees. If you're getting paid less than your coworkers, you won't even know it; you're not supposed to talk about it.
Companies aren't supposed to punish employees from talking about salaries, but they do it anyway. They know that labor laws aren't strong enough to stop them. There are very few restrictions on the reasons why a company can fire you. If they catch someone talking about salaries, they can always come up with some sham excuse for firing that employee before they inspire others to argue for higher wages, and the burden is on the employee to prove that they were fired without just cause (does it get any more backward than that?).
A student loan forgiveness program could provide financial stability to lots of young people who are currently stuck in low-paying jobs because they have neither the money nor the time to get higher training for high-skilled jobs. We could keep tuition low by allowing the government to directly negotiate lower tuition rates in a universal education program like Bernie Sanders supported.
GDP growth has been strong for years. Yet average wages are only inching along, and even the slight increases over the past several years (and yes, that also dates back to the Obama years) aren't keeping pace with productivity growth. We've done a lot to make American companies wealthy, but we haven't done nearly enough on actually improving the lot of ordinary Americans.
A corporation can make higher profits and still not pay their workers higher wages. In fact, that seems to be the norm: when a corporation makes more money, it pays its executives more. They, after all, are the ones who decide where to spend the company's money.
Having 2% GDP growth doesn't magically make companies more generous to their workers. Companies won't pay high wages unless they have a reason to do so.
If you look at GDP growth over time, if you look at unemployment over time, the economy was in good shape years before Trump took office. He hasn't really changed that, nor has he delivered the 4% growth he promised, or even the 3% growth that others predicted. The closest thing has been near-3% growth in certain quarters of the year, which also happened under Obama.
The economy wasn't in nearly as good a shape as it is now.
Your facts are wrong here, he did hit 4% on certain quarters.
If you don't like the links I cited then feel free to call my position on this topic "weak" and conclude that I am incorrect. That won't hurt my feelings and I won't lose any sleep over it.
*************
Khashoggi is still news only to journalists because they think he was one of them and they have an overinflated sense of self-importance. He *chose* to go to Turkey and he *chose* to go into the Saudi embassy; I am firm believer in allowing people the right to make their own choices so long as they accept the consequences of those choices. Had he stayed put in Virginia he would still be alive. Unfortunately, the 3 people who were shot and killed in Chicago on the same day that he died barely received any local news attention, much less national attention. I guess their lives don't matter.
I have been saying for years that Saudi Arabia is not our friend and they do not have our best interests at heart. Now that we are the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world we should seriously consider severing any and all ties with them--we don't need them and we don't need their oil.
You have a problem with me linking an article that possibly gives some insight to the background of current events being played out?
Has it never occured to you to wonder why Edrogan is taking such a hard line with the murder of this journalist?
This wasn't to me but I wanted to address it. In my opinion, Edogan is trying to profit from Saudi Arabia getting busted with their hand in the cookie jar with the assassination. Saudi moves down and its an opportunity for Turkey to move up and take more power and leadership in the region.
Nobody here is praising Erdogan though somebody may have posted Trump's praise for him. Trump said Erdogan "does things the right way" in June and fist bumped him. At the same press conference he called the EU the "foe of the United States.".
To most Americans he's a bad guy who has had his men attack Americans multiple times in America, he's likely used chem weapons on Kuds, he's cracked down on the media and so forth - he's a brutal dictator.
If you look at GDP growth over time, if you look at unemployment over time, the economy was in good shape years before Trump took office. He hasn't really changed that, nor has he delivered the 4% growth he promised, or even the 3% growth that others predicted. The closest thing has been near-3% growth in certain quarters of the year, which also happened under Obama.
The economy wasn't in nearly as good a shape as it is now.
Your facts are wrong here, he did hit 4% on certain quarters.
It's hard to argue that the Trump era isn't a noticeable improvement over the Obama era on most any economic metric.
1. Apparently Trump has gotten 4% growth in certain quarters, not 3%. 2. Your second source says that Obama did in fact see over 3% growth during certain quarters, if not years. Same goes for Trump: he saw over 3% growth in certain quarters, but not 3% per year. 3. The Trump era is built upon the Obama era. Again, these numbers were strong when Trump entered office. Whether you credit the president with the economy or not, the fact is that these positive trends all began under Obama. Trump merely failed to reverse the tide; all of this predated his election. Trump inherited a strong economy from Obama just like he inherited a massive fortune from his father.
We do need to bear in mind that quarterly growth and yearly growth are two very different things. Here is a graph showing how much quarterly growth can vary within a single year:
How soon we forget how bad things were going into 2009. Banks and stocks crashing. Unemployment skyrocketing to nearly 10%. Mortgages under water, savings depleted or wiped put. Obama spent his entire Presidency simply trying to crawl out of the ditch the Bush Administration had put us in.
In track and field terms, Obama gave Trump a perfect baton handoff. In comparison, Bush left the baton for Obama sitting on the middle of the track and didn't even run the first leg of the race, forcing him to run nearly the whole race himself before he could even pick it up and start from square one. By any objective measure, Obama walked into office on day one with the worst economic situation on his plate as anyone since FDR.
Edit - Lame. It doesnt have the x or y axis. The highest the graph goes is a little over 10%. The date starts in 1980 and goes to the present. Obama takes over at around the 75% through the second big spike (The great recession) and sees it all the way until close to the end.
DOUBLE EDIT - Blast. I think the legend is there, but the color makes it unreadable : P
I arbitrarily picked 1980 as a start point, but Obama directrly presided over the largest drop in US unemployment in that period of time. Reagan comes close, but doesnt cut it.
When you consider the state of the economy, simply comparing two years arbitrarily based on absolute values lacks context.
Is the economy under Trump in a better place than it was under Obama? Yes. However, is the difference from Obama to Trump bigger or more significant than the difference between Bush and Obama? Clearly not.
If I put a graph of the stock market, it would show more than 250% increase from 2009 to 2017. The Stock Market isnt really a reliable indicator of the economy all the times, but it can be worth mentioning. This is a far larger increase that what Trump has accomplished (so far).
50% of all American workers make less than $30,533 per year.
I'm sure it really reasonates how 4% growth exceeds expectations and the stock market oh boy oh boy right. The stock market goes up it doesn't affect people, the stock market goes down people get laid off.
If you don't like the links I cited then feel free to call my position on this topic "weak" and conclude that I am incorrect. That won't hurt my feelings and I won't lose any sleep over it.
But not that they transfer those diseases here, which is what I was making for.
Khashoggi is still news only to journalists because they think he was one of them and they have an overinflated sense of self-importance. He *chose* to go to Turkey and he *chose* to go into the Saudi embassy; I am firm believer in allowing people the right to make their own choices so long as they accept the consequences of those choices. Had he stayed put in Virginia he would still be alive. Unfortunately, the 3 people who were shot and killed in Chicago on the same day that he died barely received any local news attention, much less national attention. I guess their lives don't matter.
He was required to go to the consulate to get married. He didn't just say one day out of the blue, "I think I'll go to Turkey to the Consulate of my people, for shits and giggles." If he wanted to get married (and he did), he had to go. He even took his girlfriend with him and told her to watch for him. She didn't see him come out. He would have been alive had he not gone, true, but who wouldn't do something unpleasant to marry the person you love.
Khashoggi is still news only to journalists because they think he was one of them and they have an overinflated sense of self-importance. He *chose* to go to Turkey and he *chose* to go into the Saudi embassy; I am firm believer in allowing people the right to make their own choices so long as they accept the consequences of those choices. Had he stayed put in Virginia he would still be alive. Unfortunately, the 3 people who were shot and killed in Chicago on the same day that he died barely received any local news attention, much less national attention. I guess their lives don't matter.
He was required to go to the consulate to get married. He didn't just say one day out of the blue, "I think I'll go to Turkey to the Consulate of my people, for shits and giggles." If he wanted to get married (and he did), he had to go. He even took his girlfriend with him and told her to watch for him. She didn't see him come out. He would have been alive had he not gone, true, but who wouldn't do something unpleasant to marry the person you love.
This.
Also - Empathy makes it a story to more people than just journalists. You speak only for yourself - it may not be a story for you, but it is to me, and plenty of others. I also feel for anyone who died due to gun violence on the same day. I'm not going to criticize the media simply because it's completely unrealistic to expect them to keep everyone informed on anything that could matter to anyone.
He was required to go to the consulate to get married. He didn't just say one day out of the blue, "I think I'll go to Turkey to the Consulate of my people, for shits and giggles." If he wanted to get married (and he did), he had to go. He even took his girlfriend with him and told her to watch for him. She didn't see him come out. He would have been alive had he not gone, true, but who wouldn't do something unpleasant to marry the person you love.
Was he required to go to *that* consulate or could it have been any of them? Truthfully, I don't know. I love my wife and I would take a bullet for her but back before we got married if my choice were "marry the woman you love or die" then I would just move in with her, become common law, and be able to live my life with her. This is called "making a wise decision".
I have empathy for people...but it is difficult for me to feel that when someone has made a blatantly ridiculous decision. And, yes, I speak only for myself...which is true for everyone here. I will always criticize the media, though, when they are trying to tell me what I should think or how I should feel.
I have empathy for people...but it is difficult for me to feel that when someone has made a blatantly ridiculous decision.
To say that this was a ridiculous decision is to combine the advantage of hindsight with a total lack of empathy.
I don't know what was going through Khashoggi's mind in the moments before he was tortured and torn into bloody pieces. Maybe he thought they'd rough him up. Maybe he thought they'd kick him out. Maybe he was thinking about spending the rest of his life with the woman he loved.
But I'm pretty sure he didn't think, as he walked into that embassy, that he was going to have his fingers cut off and his face mutilated before he was murdered and literally chopped up into pieces.
The only empathetic response to this news is abject horror.
He was required to go to the consulate to get married. He didn't just say one day out of the blue, "I think I'll go to Turkey to the Consulate of my people, for shits and giggles." If he wanted to get married (and he did), he had to go. He even took his girlfriend with him and told her to watch for him. She didn't see him come out. He would have been alive had he not gone, true, but who wouldn't do something unpleasant to marry the person you love.
Was he required to go to *that* consulate or could it have been any of them? Truthfully, I don't know. I love my wife and I would take a bullet for her but back before we got married if my choice were "marry the woman you love or die" then I would just move in with her, become common law, and be able to live my life with her. This is called "making a wise decision".
I have empathy for people...but it is difficult for me to feel that when someone has made a blatantly ridiculous decision. And, yes, I speak only for myself...which is true for everyone here. I will always criticize the media, though, when they are trying to tell me what I should think or how I should feel.
Did he know he was going to die, though? Hindsight is 20/20, but none of us have foresight (or at least, I don't). You can leave the house thinking everything is okay, and have an accident, get murdered or mutilated having no idea you were heading for that end. This is similar, I suppose.
Oh, and given that they were waiting for him, I have a very strong suspicion that he was told to go to the consulate in Turkey for his marriage license. Maybe he thought that Muhammed Bin-Salman wouldn't take his kill squads onto the ground of another country. Erdogan does seem to be doing his best to beat the Saudis with what they did.
I have empathy for people...but it is difficult for me to feel that when someone has made a blatantly ridiculous decision. And, yes, I speak only for myself...which is true for everyone here. I will always criticize the media, though, when they are trying to tell me what I should think or how I should feel.
I can see others have already responded to this, but I feel compelled to do so as well. I can see no grounds at all to regard Khashoggi's decision to go to the consulate as ridiculous. To say it was seems to me to have moved from suggesting people should be responsible for their actions to blaming a victim for someone else's criminality (you shouldn't live in that neighborhood / walk there after dark / wear those clothes etc).
Khashoggi had a Turkish fiancee and lived part of the time in Turkey, so it's not surprising he was told he needed to go to the consulate there to get documentation allowing him to marry. He was concerned in recent months about his safety, but I can't really see why a decision to go to a consulate in Turkey should have been more dangerous than just staying at home. In the former case Saudi Arabia went to extreme lengths to try and cover up their crime (using a body double, disabling all the CCTV, redecorating parts of the consulate, threatening consulate staff etc). Given that, it's not surprising that the attempted cover-up has unravelled and the fact it was even attempted is indicative of someone at a very senior level demonstrating arrogance in the use of power and a lack of judgment. Concealing evidence of an abduction or murder would have been easier almost anywhere except the consulate.
Did he know he was going to die, though? Hindsight is 20/20, but none of us have foresight (or at least, I don't). You can leave the house thinking everything is okay, and have an accident, get murdered or mutilated having no idea you were heading for that end. This is similar, I suppose.
I often try to remind myself, sometimes on a daily basis, that I might not make it home that evening. Morbid? Probably. Realistic? Definitely.
Anyway, it's the Saudi royal family--they have old-world, absolute monarch sensibilities, which means they think nothing of killing a political rival or dissident. To them, it's just "business as usual". The only surprising thing is that they didn't actually take him back to Saudi Arabia before killing him--there wouldn't even be questions of "who did it?" or "why did they do it?" at that point and no one would have to be worried about some other country investigating them.
I can see others have already responded to this, but I feel compelled to do so as well. I can see no grounds at all to regard Khashoggi's decision to go to the consulate as ridiculous...
To say that is at best backseat driving (or armchair quarterbacking). It's working backwards from the result (him being tortured and killed). Yeah if we knew outcomes for certain we'd make wise choices but we don't.
But that victim blaming is dangerously close to something like "well it's your fault that I had to kill you". The logic absolves the attacking party of guilt. It's in the vein of "if you don't want to get raped don't wear skimpy clothes" and things like that. It's the rapists fault not the clothes! You can run around buck nekkid doesn't mean you 'deserve to be raped.'. As always 'treat others as you hope to be treated'. That includes not killing and torturing or raping.
Trump, unsurprisingly has used this backwards logic to get Russia off the hook. He said it's our fault we got hacked. He also said 'Russia if your listening to hack and find Hillary's emails' on national TV but thats another issue.
Comments
Giving to and sharing with others who have less than you do is admirable; giving to others so much that you cannot pay your own bills and your own refrigerator runs empty is foolish.
I am probably the only person not on the left side of the aisle who even dares mention the a-word.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/politics/donald-trump-economy-trade-gdp-growth-credit/index.html
I think rather than saying Presidents have nothing to do with the economy, it's a lot more sensible to say that they influence it, but not control it.
On the other other hand, sometimes conditions in detention centers lead to increased risk of contracting communicable diseases; again, this is not the fault of the children involved. I presume that if a child has reached a detention center and there is no accompanying adult in charge of that minor that health care workers proceed with normal routine care without that adult's approval.
@WarChiefZeke I can agree with the "influence yet not control" sentiment re: Presidents and the economy.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-calls-killing-at-saudi-consulate-worst-cover-up-ever/ar-BBONRNJ?ocid=spartanntp
Since the recovery from the recession of 2008-2009, the economy has been steadily improving and leveling out to its normal level (2% growth is the norm; it's been about that level for centuries). Trump hasn't really done anything to change the economic system (I didn't think he would) and as a result, it's chugging along normally.
If you look at GDP growth over time, if you look at unemployment over time, the economy was in good shape years before Trump took office. He hasn't really changed that, nor has he delivered the 4% growth he promised, or even the 3% growth that others predicted. The closest thing has been near-3% growth in certain quarters of the year, which also happened under Obama.
Now that GDP growth is normal, inflation is not currently a problem, the stock market is strong, and unemployment is low, I think we need to tackle the remaining problems with economy: low wages, low benefits for workers, low job security, and high levels of student loan debt.
As far as how to accomplish those objectives, I think we need, more than anything else, much stronger unions to help workers bargain for higher wages and benefits and make it harder for companies to fire employees without cause. It's no coincidence that wages began stagnating at the same time unions became less common.
Seriously, who else is going to fight for worker rights besides unions? Congress could do it, but they won't--they aren't. Individual workers try, but a single worker alone doesn't have the bargaining power or the information to negotiate with a huge company on even ground. The company knows how much every worker is paid and how much money every worker makes them--this information is hidden from individual employees. If you're getting paid less than your coworkers, you won't even know it; you're not supposed to talk about it.
Companies aren't supposed to punish employees from talking about salaries, but they do it anyway. They know that labor laws aren't strong enough to stop them. There are very few restrictions on the reasons why a company can fire you. If they catch someone talking about salaries, they can always come up with some sham excuse for firing that employee before they inspire others to argue for higher wages, and the burden is on the employee to prove that they were fired without just cause (does it get any more backward than that?).
A student loan forgiveness program could provide financial stability to lots of young people who are currently stuck in low-paying jobs because they have neither the money nor the time to get higher training for high-skilled jobs. We could keep tuition low by allowing the government to directly negotiate lower tuition rates in a universal education program like Bernie Sanders supported.
GDP growth has been strong for years. Yet average wages are only inching along, and even the slight increases over the past several years (and yes, that also dates back to the Obama years) aren't keeping pace with productivity growth. We've done a lot to make American companies wealthy, but we haven't done nearly enough on actually improving the lot of ordinary Americans.
A corporation can make higher profits and still not pay their workers higher wages. In fact, that seems to be the norm: when a corporation makes more money, it pays its executives more. They, after all, are the ones who decide where to spend the company's money.
Having 2% GDP growth doesn't magically make companies more generous to their workers. Companies won't pay high wages unless they have a reason to do so.
The economy wasn't in nearly as good a shape as it is now.
Your facts are wrong here, he did hit 4% on certain quarters.
http://fortune.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-growth-trump/
And Obama is one of the few Presidents never to go over 3% yearly.
https://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
And Trump's term has had better wage growths than all of Obama's.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/pay-gains-under-trumps-best-since-the-great-recession.html
It's hard to argue that the Trump era isn't a noticeable improvement over the Obama era on most any economic metric.
*************
Khashoggi is still news only to journalists because they think he was one of them and they have an overinflated sense of self-importance. He *chose* to go to Turkey and he *chose* to go into the Saudi embassy; I am firm believer in allowing people the right to make their own choices so long as they accept the consequences of those choices. Had he stayed put in Virginia he would still be alive. Unfortunately, the 3 people who were shot and killed in Chicago on the same day that he died barely received any local news attention, much less national attention. I guess their lives don't matter.
I have been saying for years that Saudi Arabia is not our friend and they do not have our best interests at heart. Now that we are the leading producer of oil and natural gas in the world we should seriously consider severing any and all ties with them--we don't need them and we don't need their oil.
Nobody here is praising Erdogan though somebody may have posted Trump's praise for him. Trump said Erdogan "does things the right way" in June and fist bumped him. At the same press conference he called the EU the "foe of the United States.".
To most Americans he's a bad guy who has had his men attack Americans multiple times in America, he's likely used chem weapons on Kuds, he's cracked down on the media and so forth - he's a brutal dictator.
http://listverse.com/2018/04/12/10-disturbing-facts-about-president-erdogan-of-turkey/
All that being said that doesn't make him wrong about Saudi Arabia. Especially if he has audio, video and physical evidence.
Your facts are wrong here, he did hit 4% on certain quarters.
http://fortune.com/2018/07/27/us-gdp-growth-trump/
And Obama is one of the few Presidents never to go over 3% yearly.
https://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
And Trump's term has had better wage growths than all of Obama's.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/pay-gains-under-trumps-best-since-the-great-recession.html
It's hard to argue that the Trump era isn't a noticeable improvement over the Obama era on most any economic metric.
1. Apparently Trump has gotten 4% growth in certain quarters, not 3%.
2. Your second source says that Obama did in fact see over 3% growth during certain quarters, if not years. Same goes for Trump: he saw over 3% growth in certain quarters, but not 3% per year.
3. The Trump era is built upon the Obama era. Again, these numbers were strong when Trump entered office. Whether you credit the president with the economy or not, the fact is that these positive trends all began under Obama. Trump merely failed to reverse the tide; all of this predated his election. Trump inherited a strong economy from Obama just like he inherited a massive fortune from his father.
We do need to bear in mind that quarterly growth and yearly growth are two very different things. Here is a graph showing how much quarterly growth can vary within a single year:
In track and field terms, Obama gave Trump a perfect baton handoff. In comparison, Bush left the baton for Obama sitting on the middle of the track and didn't even run the first leg of the race, forcing him to run nearly the whole race himself before he could even pick it up and start from square one. By any objective measure, Obama walked into office on day one with the worst economic situation on his plate as anyone since FDR.
https://www.bls.gov/
Edit - Lame. It doesnt have the x or y axis. The highest the graph goes is a little over 10%. The date starts in 1980 and goes to the present. Obama takes over at around the 75% through the second big spike (The great recession) and sees it all the way until close to the end.
DOUBLE EDIT - Blast. I think the legend is there, but the color makes it unreadable : P
I arbitrarily picked 1980 as a start point, but Obama directrly presided over the largest drop in US unemployment in that period of time. Reagan comes close, but doesnt cut it.
When you consider the state of the economy, simply comparing two years arbitrarily based on absolute values lacks context.
Is the economy under Trump in a better place than it was under Obama? Yes. However, is the difference from Obama to Trump bigger or more significant than the difference between Bush and Obama? Clearly not.
If I put a graph of the stock market, it would show more than 250% increase from 2009 to 2017. The Stock Market isnt really a reliable indicator of the economy all the times, but it can be worth mentioning. This is a far larger increase that what Trump has accomplished (so far).
Context is key.
I'm sure it really reasonates how 4% growth exceeds expectations and the stock market oh boy oh boy right. The stock market goes up it doesn't affect people, the stock market goes down people get laid off.
Also - Empathy makes it a story to more people than just journalists. You speak only for yourself - it may not be a story for you, but it is to me, and plenty of others. I also feel for anyone who died due to gun violence on the same day. I'm not going to criticize the media simply because it's completely unrealistic to expect them to keep everyone informed on anything that could matter to anyone.
I have empathy for people...but it is difficult for me to feel that when someone has made a blatantly ridiculous decision. And, yes, I speak only for myself...which is true for everyone here. I will always criticize the media, though, when they are trying to tell me what I should think or how I should feel.
I don't know what was going through Khashoggi's mind in the moments before he was tortured and torn into bloody pieces. Maybe he thought they'd rough him up. Maybe he thought they'd kick him out. Maybe he was thinking about spending the rest of his life with the woman he loved.
But I'm pretty sure he didn't think, as he walked into that embassy, that he was going to have his fingers cut off and his face mutilated before he was murdered and literally chopped up into pieces.
The only empathetic response to this news is abject horror.
Khashoggi had a Turkish fiancee and lived part of the time in Turkey, so it's not surprising he was told he needed to go to the consulate there to get documentation allowing him to marry. He was concerned in recent months about his safety, but I can't really see why a decision to go to a consulate in Turkey should have been more dangerous than just staying at home. In the former case Saudi Arabia went to extreme lengths to try and cover up their crime (using a body double, disabling all the CCTV, redecorating parts of the consulate, threatening consulate staff etc). Given that, it's not surprising that the attempted cover-up has unravelled and the fact it was even attempted is indicative of someone at a very senior level demonstrating arrogance in the use of power and a lack of judgment. Concealing evidence of an abduction or murder would have been easier almost anywhere except the consulate.
Anyway, it's the Saudi royal family--they have old-world, absolute monarch sensibilities, which means they think nothing of killing a political rival or dissident. To them, it's just "business as usual". The only surprising thing is that they didn't actually take him back to Saudi Arabia before killing him--there wouldn't even be questions of "who did it?" or "why did they do it?" at that point and no one would have to be worried about some other country investigating them.
But that victim blaming is dangerously close to something like "well it's your fault that I had to kill you". The logic absolves the attacking party of guilt. It's in the vein of "if you don't want to get raped don't wear skimpy clothes" and things like that. It's the rapists fault not the clothes! You can run around buck nekkid doesn't mean you 'deserve to be raped.'. As always 'treat others as you hope to be treated'. That includes not killing and torturing or raping.
Trump, unsurprisingly has used this backwards logic to get Russia off the hook. He said it's our fault we got hacked. He also said 'Russia if your listening to hack and find Hillary's emails' on national TV but thats another issue.