monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

No bias right? I do not care what you think. Obama had his foot on the throats of small business. Trumps has gotten rid of those ridiculous regulations. The more you examine what Obama did to hurt employment you see a pattern of deliberate failure.

Can't be bias.

Scoring wasn't biased.

Again not your call.

Obama's goal was to relieve this country of its super power status by redistributing wealth, signing resolutions from the UN that chipped away at our sovereignty, and gave away some of our water rights. Trump fixed that.

The stock market does not always reflect the economy. Period. The GDP does.

The stock market does not always reflect the economy. Period. The GDP does.

A Bob Woodward expose book has been a rite of passage for presidential administrations since the storied investigative reporter first made a name for himself by breaking Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal. Now it's Donald Trump's turn under the microscope.

The picture revealed - of an administration having a "nervous breakdown of executive power" - is unflattering in the extreme.

Donald Trump's supporters will say, not without cause, that Woodward epitomises the Washington establishment their man is fighting against.

It's also true, however, that the reporter has unrivalled access to the corridors of power, and the general Washington consensus is that it's better to talk to him than not, since your colleagues - and enemies - are certainly giving him their side of the story.

While the accounts in Fear: Trump in the White House are provided on "deep background" - i.e. without attribution - the episodes Woodward recounts and the quotes he uses come from those in the room - and often, in fact, from the people who were doing the speaking.

The White House, and the president himself, have since responded to the book, calling it "fabricated stories" by "former disgruntled employees".

"It's just another bad book," Mr Trump told the Daily Caller during an interview, adding that Woodward "has a a lot of credibility problems".

Here's a look at some of the blockbuster revelations that have emerged so far from early excerpts of Woodward's book.

Saudi prosecutors say they will punish satire on social media that "mocks, provokes or disrupts public order, religious values and public morals".

Anyone producing or distributing such material could face up to five years in prison and an $800,000 (£623,000) fine.

Prosecutors have in the past used the Gulf kingdom's anti-cybercrime law to prosecute critics of the government.

But the latest announcement emphasises that satire can now also get social media users in serious trouble.

In the past year, the Saudi authorities carried out an apparent crackdown on dissent that has reportedly seen dozens of women's rights activists, human rights defenders, influential Islamist clerics and intellectuals detained.

The most prominent cleric to have been arrested is Salman al-Odah, who has more than 14 million followers on Twitter.

On Tuesday, Saudi activists and Mr Odah's family reported that prosecutors were seeking the death penalty at his trial at a terrorism tribunal in Riyadh.

The 61-year-old - who was arrested last September after posting a tweet endorsing warmer relations with Qatar - is accused of "seeking to spread sedition" and "incitement against the rulers", according to London-based rights group ALQST.

Mr Odah's son, Abdullah, said he faced 37 charges in total, including establishing an organisation for defending the Prophet Muhammad and tweeting against "tyranny".

There was no immediate confirmation from the authorities, but the pro-government newspaper Okaz and other Saudi media also reported on the case.

Adam Coogle of Human Rights Watch tweeted that "bringing the death penalty into a case like this is a major escalation in the level of repression".

Prosecutors are also said to have sought the death penalty for five activists, including the female rights defender Israa al-Ghomgham, on trial for participating in anti-government protests by the minority Shia Muslim community in Qatif.

The Clinton family, through their Clinton Foundation, has received tens of millions of dollars in donations from Saudi businessmen, princes and their friends. The Saudi government alone gave more than $10 million.

Wealthy Saudi citizens such as Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi and Nasser Al-Rashid (the latter who is said to have close ties with the Saudi royal family) have given generously to the notorious nonprofit, which does not publish specific donation amounts but offers rough figures. While Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, arms sales worth more than $29 billion were approved for Saudi Arabia, including advanced fighter jets that raised complaints with American ally Israel about the region’s balance of power.

Donald J. Trump
‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

Only the Obama WH can get away with attacking Bob Woodward.
12:04 PM - 1 Mar 2013

4,087 Retweets
3,383 Likes

....exposes the wretched demopoop agenda.....

Bob Woodward's new book -- "Fear: Trump in the White House" -- exploded onto the political scene on Tuesday morning. It included anecdotes like: President Donald Trump's aides purposely keeping information from him in order to protect the country; a failed mock-interview in preparation for a potential sit-down with special counsel Robert Mueller over Russia; and Trump lashing out at aides, most notably Jeff Sessions, referring to his attorney general as "mentally retarded."
All of this is salacious. And makes for great headlines.

But what's truly worrisome for President Trump and his administration is that the portrait Woodward paints of a chaotic, dysfunctional, ill-prepared White House is all strangely familiar. It's the same vision of the White House that Michael Wolff wrote way back in January in "Fire and Fury." It's the same picture that Omarosa Manigault-Newman constructed in her memoir of her year in the White House. It's the same story that White House reporters at CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and virtually every other mainstream media outlet has told of the Trump White House.

Sure, Omarosa could be a disgruntled former aide trying to make money while exacting revenge on her enemies. Sure, Michael Wolff could have been misled by a few sources with scores to settle with Trump. Sure, reporters could get a detail or two wrong. Sure, Woodward could have cast a scene or two in ways that are less than favorable to Trump.

But how could all -- and I mean all -- of the reporting on this White House reach a striking similar conclusion? The portraits of Trump drawn by Wolff, Omarosa and Woodward are all eerily similar to one another -- a man hopelessly out of his depth in the job, but entirely incapable of understanding how desperately out of depth he actually is. A man motivated almost entirely by personal grievance. A man willing to humiliate people who work for him, to play staffers against one another, to scapegoat underlings to keep blame off of himself. Someone who has so much self-belief that he rarely adequately prepares for situations involving international diplomacy and national security. Top aides who view that their jobs are primarily keeping Trump from causing serious harm, and grousing every step of the way about the man.

And now Bob Woodward -- without question the preeminent political reporter and chronicler of the White House in the last four decades -- has written a book that confirms every bit of the portrayals we've seen about who Trump is, who he surrounds himself and how he conducts his business.

The consistency in those storylines is virtually impossible to explain in any other way than this: It's true. To believe otherwise, you have to convince yourself that not only the entire daily media but also the likes of Wolff and Woodward all got together and agreed on how to portray Trump across tweets, stories and books. Which is, of course, beyond ridiculous.

The Point: What Woodward's book does is confirm all of the negative stories we've already heard about Trump and his administration. This isn't the work of a reporter with credibility problems or a press-loving former aide. This is the story. This is the President and how he really acts and thinks.

shows a strong recovery under Obama over several years from the 2008 crash, something your sources of right wing information never got round to telling you.

Obama's best year? 2.6 percent in 2015. That's so weak that it is beneath the post-WWII average of 2.9 percent. In other words, Obama's best year of economic growth would have been a below-average year across the past 70 years.

The following chart shows the best year of real GDP growth under each president since WWII: