Could you tell me where I could pick up a copy of your little "Dog Whistle" Code book? You seem to have all the insights into these things that no one else has. I'd like to look up the term for the president who is so anti-Jew that he nullified the Iran deal, has a jewish daughter and grand-children, wore a yarmulka to the Wailing wall, and officially recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel after 50+ years. 

***I sure hope I spelled everything correctly. The surest way to lose an argument is to misspell a word. 

I can usually infer when someone is stating something tongue in cheek. but after reading a lot of the comments from people in this thread it becomes harder and harder to tell when people are joking. Some of the things I read on here are so ridiculous that in my wildest dreams I can't believe people are being serious. Unfortunately some are. I disagree with a lot you write Eric, but I don't see you as one of those people.

Obviously each president has different challenges in their terms of service. They each have to be judged by their results to the challenges they faced in their time. However, presidents that have faced similar challenges can be judged against one another. For instance, and thus far, Trump has seemingly had far greater success in the war on ISIS and in stabilizing the Korean peninsula than Obama did. 

If you end up in hell because of someone else's actions, then it's not important whether their intentions were good or bad. You're still in hell either way. Good will is a plus. But good will with bad results means nothing. 

"I doubt that he would even be able to say that the Fed's goals are maximum employment and price stability, which is the goals that Congress have assigned to the Fed. He's made comments about the Fed having an exchange-rate objective in order to support his trade plans, or possibly targeting the U.S. balance of trade. And, you know, I think comments like that shows a lack of understanding of the impact of the Fed on the economy, and appropriate policy goals."

LINK to the source interview.

She also said: "When I continually hear focus by the president and some of his advisers on remedying bilateral trade deficits with other trade partners, I think almost any economist would tell you that there's no real meaning to bilateral trade deficits, and it's not an appropriate objective of policy."

I would totally agree with this. The bilateral trade deficits used by the Trump administration to judge whether a trading relationship is 'fair', is a basically useless measure. For example, iPhones shipped to the US from China are measured as being a $225 import from China. However, the vast majority of components in the iPhone come from outside China and all that's done in China is assembling and testing the device. That work constitutes about $5 per device, The rest of the value actually comes from the components from an international supply chain. Therefore, saying there is a $225 trade deficit with China per device is a load of nonsense. But that's how the Trump administration measures it -- and is using as the basis for introducing its protectionist tariffs.

We are brother.  We are.

Gotta love the "oversimplifying to the point of inaccuracy while never addressing the main issue being raised and then feigning frustration with the whole thing " mentality. 

How many missiles has NK launched over Japan since their first meeting? How many times has Guam been threatened? How many US soldiers bodies were returned? And of course Kim being the first North Korean leader to visit the South was nothing either.....But hey, nothing to see here right? Progress? What progress?

As incredible a breakthrough as this ethereal non-binding agreement may seem to those whose history books start at 2016, North Korea has signed similar agreements many times in the past 30 years - see thisWired Article - and has broken all of them.

How many billions did Trump give NK compared to the past presidents that were played? You seem to be a historian on the subject. 

Kim has done the same with Trump, as there's mounting evidence that NK has actually increased production of nuclear material immediately after Trump's last triumphant capitulation. 

US intelligence agencies have said that Kim will never give up his nukes, they're his only bargaining chip. So expect more hot air from the latest summit as the master negotiator comes back from Vietnam with yet more magic beans in return for legitimizing a dictator.

You seem to have everything worked out already. Come home Trump. Nothing for you to do in Vietnam. God forbid you couldn't wrap everything up in one meeting after 65 years of hostilities. Nuclear missile testing has stopped. Production likely hasn't. Not where things need to be ultimately, but it may be worth allowing the process to play out a bit more before declaring Trump a failure. 

And once again you revert back to your typical argumentative logic of resorting to ad-hominem attacks. Predictable. But maybe you want to sit back a little bit and see how things play out before you so neatly wrap everything up for the rest of us.