Trump faces backlash after saluting North Korean general

[Ban Hammer 12,842]

[nykolos 711]

8 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

But Trump is an idiotic dolt who doesn't act presidential and doesn't know how to do anything.

 

Not bad for a idiotic dolt who doesn't know how to do anything. 

 

I thought Trump was quite presidential during the press conference in NOKO..  But I do agree that more than often he's not presidential, a lot of that comes from not being politically correct, he throws political correctness out the door and says what's on his mind, and I for one respect that.. Yeah, he has a big mouth, doesn't think before he talks and says things that are not entirely accurate, he has faults, NONE of which has effected the great success of the last year and half, and now he brings NOKO to the table, easing tensions of the biggest nuclear threat since Kennedy's self inflicted Cuban missile crisis... I give him a lot of credit!  

[jb914 33]

1 hour ago, nykolos said:

Not bad for a idiotic dolt who doesn't know how to do anything. 

 

I thought Trump was quite presidential during the press conference in NOKO..  But I do agree that more than often he's not presidential, a lot of that comes from not being politically correct, he throws political correctness out the door and says what's on his mind, and I for one respect that.. Yeah, he has a big mouth, doesn't think before he talks and says things that are not entirely accurate, he has faults, NONE of which has effected the great success of the last year and half, and now he brings NOKO to the table, easing tensions of the biggest nuclear threat since Kennedy's self inflicted Cuban missile crisis... I give him a lot of credit!  

Speaking of accuracy, that Chart is completely out of proportion. It depicts 4.4% as about 300% larger than 3.8%, when in fact it is only 15% larger.

 

And if Presidents get to take credit for the economy, let's compare the S&P 500 under the previous two Presidents:

 

With 8 years of Bush, the S&P lost about 50% of its value, starting at 1500, down to 700, up to 1500 crashing back to 700.

 

With 8 years of Obama, the S&P steadily rose 300%, from 700 in Jan '09 to 2250 in Jan '17.

 

Also, let's see where we are when Trump leaves office. We've had a bull run since 2009, and bull markets never last forever, the economy goes in cycles.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, jb914 said:

Speaking of accuracy, that Chart is completely out of proportion. It depicts 4.4% as about 300% larger than 3.8%, when in fact it is only 15% larger.

You might fool some of the newcomers in CEHST, but I know you are better with numbers than that.  The scale is in 0.2 increments.  Completely accurate.

 

But... a misrepresentative timeline.  Better to look at if for the past 10 years.  Or 20.

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by IDWAF

[nykolos 711]

5 hours ago, jb914 said:

Speaking of accuracy, that Chart is completely out of proportion. It depicts 4.4% as about 300% larger than 3.8%, when in fact it is only 15% larger.

 

 

 

 

If you want to dispute the accuracy from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a non partisan government agency, knock yourself out.. Unlike your graph, it wasn't cherry picked from a partisan blog. 

[jb914 33]

6 hours ago, nykolos said:

If you want to dispute the accuracy from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a non partisan government agency, knock yourself out.. Unlike your graph, it wasn't cherry picked from a partisan blog. 

 

This chart is publicly available stock market data from Trading View, I took the screenshot and made the labels myself.

 

The S&P 500 is certainly not partisan, it's a US stock market index that tracks the market cap of 500 largest companies on the NYSE and NASDAQ.

 

 

Of course, it's debatable whether a president can take credit for the entire USA economy- that was part of my point.

 

But the data does not lie. The economy and stock markets soared under Obama, and crashed severely twice under Bush.

 

Yet suddenly the GOP wants to take credit for a bull market economy that has been pumping since Jan 2009, the month Obama took office.

Edited June 16, 2018 by jb914

[Steeleballz 7,550]

4 minutes ago, jb914 said:

 

This chart is publicly available stock market data from Trading View, I made the screenshot and made the labels myself.

 

The S&P 500 is certainly not partisan, it is an American stock market index tracking the market capitalization of 500 of the largest companies listed on the NYSE and NASDAQ.

 

Of course, it is highly debatable whether a president can entirely take credit for the USA economy, especially after just 500 days in office- that was part of my point.

 

But the data does not lie. The economy and stock markets soared under Obama, and crashed twice under Bush.

 

Yet suddenly the GOP wants to take credit for a bull market economy that has been pumping since Jan 2009, the month Obama took office.

 

   Especially the people who claimed the real unemployment rate was in the high 20% range or more back in 2016 when the department of labor U6 was at 10%. Trump was one of those people and very vocal about not trusting the data from the Bureau of Labor. Why celebrate now if they didn't believe it before? 

[bcking 3,157]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Especially the people who claimed the real unemployment rate was in the high 20% range or more back in 2016 when the department of labor U6 was at 10%. Trump was one of those people and very vocal about not trusting the data from the Bureau of Labor. Why celebrate now if they didn't believe it before? 

Because suddenly once Trump is in office their statistics become 100% accurate.

 

It's called magical thinking. We study it in childhood development.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, bcking said:

Because suddenly once Trump is in office their statistics become 100% accurate.

 

It's called magical thinking. We study it in childhood development.

If only you'd been here from 2010-2015.  Talk about make believe...

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IDWAF said:

If only you'd been here from 2010-2015.  Talk about make believe...

Doesn't change anything about right now. Not really a valid argument. But thanks for the useless observation.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Just now, bcking said:

Doesn't change anything about right now. Not really a valid argument. But thanks for the useless observation.

It's not useless, unless you refuse to recognize that regardless of party affiliation, the "facts" are usually skewed to favor your candidate.  Happened here daily in favor of Obama.  In fact, saying he was a bad president could get one labeled as a racist and kicked out of a thread or off the forum.

 

So yes, it IS a valid argument, in spite of you not understanding it.

[bcking 3,157]

7 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

It's not useless, unless you refuse to recognize that regardless of party affiliation, the "facts" are usually skewed to favor your candidate.  Happened here daily in favor of Obama.  In fact, saying he was a bad president could get one labeled as a racist and kicked out of a thread or off the forum.

 

So yes, it IS a valid argument, in spite of you not understanding it.

We aren't talking about skewing facts.

 

We are talking about lying. Trump made the point several times that the "real unemployment rate" was astronomically higher than the stats and now suddenly they're accurate.

 

He was lying. You can skew facts a little. Trump throws them in the dirt and steps on them. Magnitudes different.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

We aren't talking about skewing facts.

 

We are talking about lying. Trump made the point several times that the "real unemployment rate" was astronomically higher than the stats and now suddenly they're accurate.

 

He was lying. You can skew facts a little. Trump throws them in the dirt and steps on them. Magnitudes different.

As said in the other thread, he lies just like Obama did.  Wasn't it under Obama that the definition of unemployment was changed to lower the percentage?  Or did you conveniently forget that?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

As said in the other thread, he lies just like Obama did.  Wasn't it under Obama that the definition of unemployment was changed to lower the percentage?  Or did you conveniently forget that?

Changing a definition by the appropriate governing body isn't lying. That change is transparent.

 

Taking said numbers and making up various "real numbers" that see 4 times+ higher without any evidence to back it up. That is lying.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Changing a definition by the appropriate governing body isn't lying. That change is transparent.

 

Taking said numbers and making up various "real numbers" that see 4 times+ higher without any evidence to back it up. That is lying.

No.  Consider that the majority of Americans, and probably the world, are unaware of the definition change.  All they see are the new,  lower numbers.  Seems like deception to me.  Surprised that you don't agree.