Based on what you've shown, it looks like, under Obama, the GDP was constantly rising up massively, and then plummeting massively, all they way down into the negatives, at least twice, whereas under Trump, the GDP seems to have remained consistent, not rapidly rising, but not rapidly declining so much, either, compared to Obama.
I don't know what conclusion I should come to. Yes, it's "a bad policy" IF you favored the GDP rapidly rising but also rapidly dropping negatively, but still an okay one or even a pretty good one if you favor the GDP remaining mostly consistent so far, and it looks like it's just remaining pretty high consistently. Do you want a GDP that just goes up and down like a roller coaster, or do you want one that doesn't go up so much but doesn't go down so much either and just rises very slowly, and/or is more consistent?
Looking at 1Y specifically, I guess the reason that it suddenly dropped to 1.1 was because Trump did shut down the government to fund the border wall, which did cost quite a bit of money, but, afterwards, it rose up back to normal. Sometimes it can be necessary to make the GDP go down temporarily for the sake of a greater cause like making the border more secure from illegal aliens. I'm not too sure.
It does say that "Lower income tax will increase the disposable income of consumers and increases consumer spending (C)." which would increase the Aggregate Demand and increase the GDP, so wouldn't Trump's tax cuts be a good thing? Or is it simply not good enough since it "did help but it didn't increase GDP growth for the whole year only 1/4 of it"?
Also, maybe it's a little too early to compare how Obama handled the GDP, overall, with how Trump handled it, overall. Obama has been president for 8 years (2008 to 2016) and, at the time I am posting this, Trump has only been president for 3 years (2016 to 2019). Make that 2 years if you only start counting from the time that he was inaugurated (which is January 20, 2017) instead of the time that he won the election (November 9, 2016). Maybe in a few weeks or months, Trump might very well beat Obama's "record" and improve the GDP even more, but right now, Trump hasn't had the same amount of time that Obama did, so it doesn't seem fair to compare Obama's 8 years of GDP to Trump's 2/3 years of GDP. Remember that, in 2011, the GDP dropped drastically, twice, into the negatives.
In fact, if you compare the GDP during Trump's first 2 years of presidency, and the GDP during Obama's first 2 years of presidency (2008 to 2010), then you can see that Trump did, in fact, do a much better job at boosting the economy than Obama did.
So far, both Trump and Obama contributed to improving the economy and GDP, but Trump improved it much quicker than Obama did. Maybe this doesn't really matter in the long run, but it's still worth noting.
As for Iran...
Regardless of which side was correct, regarding the drone being shot down, would you want to be friends with the very people who:
and advocate for your death too, calling for death to your country?
To be fair, I can understand why some people on the other side of the issue would still want to pursue some kind of truce with these groups. Generally speaking, most people don't like wars, even those that fight in them. War is quite hellish, and there are often disasters and casualties from both sides due to wars. Many soldiers who die on the battlefield risk being forgotten. Many soldiers who survive the battlefield risk developing Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or something else that affects them for years to come. Sometimes, one war can lead to many more wars. If one side harms the other and the other side fights back, and both sides keep retaliating with neither side winning or losing, then the war could go on for decades if neither side looks for forgiveness or backs down, and instead decides that the only solution is to keep the war going and keep losing lives. Because of this, it does make sense to seek peace instead of war, even against those that seriously wrong you.
At the same time though, sometimes war is necessary. It was necessary to free slaves (Civil War), it was necessary to put at end to the Nazis (Holocaust/WW2), it was necessary to achieve independence from Britain (Revolutionary War), it was necessary to reduce the spread of communism (Vietnam War), and another war may very well be necessary to keep the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons.
So, yeah, there are some valid arguments for war, and also some valid arguments against war. Both sides of this have fair points to make. I know a war isn't what people really want, but it might be what we could end up getting...
