Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[Harpy Eagle]

Was the president selling or buying them?

The people buying and selling for the first time since the Housing Crash are reacting to a Trump presidency.
You know...my son-in-Law, who goes to these conventions every year just completed a 700M purchase.

Yeah yeah, I know all about your family members that you live vicariously through.

The president had nothing to do with the buying or selling. The fact that some people base the decisions on emotions about the president does not give him any actual affect.

Thanks for displaying your worthless ego yet again.

The truth hurts, but it will set you free from your worship of the government.

The fact that you actually think business people, who are the stingiest people on earth, spend 700+M based on emotions, I highly doubt your competence as an analyst.

Facts are facts. Though I doubt any of them would tell you they were basing their decisions on Trump bring the president...you likely made that part up.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Your point is that Obama actually had a substantial impact on unemployment. That is bullshit. Neither has Trump.

But, even if we assume that Obama DID have some substantial impact on unemployment (he didn't), based on that chart Mac provided, Obama spent 8 fucking years getting us back to where we were before the sub-prime crash. And, that's only AFTER he let us lose another 2-4%, taking us up to 10% unemployment.

The reality is that the president has little impact on employment. Only taxing policy can directly effect employment rates.

.

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

 

[Third Party]

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

The last 2 yards are a lot more difficult to cover than the 98, because defenses have the back of the end zone to give an offense less space.

That's why spread offenses do not work in the NFL.

But, I disagree that either Obama or Trump have had substantial impact on employment rates, other than taxing policy.

.

That would be 98 yards, and Trump only had 2 yards to go.

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

People getting laid off and those working had shitty paychecks that never saw increases.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Obama took unemployment over 10%. It skyrocketed under him during his first two years. Conversely, unemployment has steadily declined under President Trump's first two years.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You are a true, loyal partisan.


.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

 

[Indeependent]

The people buying and selling for the first time since the Housing Crash are reacting to a Trump presidency.
You know...my son-in-Law, who goes to these conventions every year just completed a 700M purchase.

Yeah yeah, I know all about your family members that you live vicariously through.

The president had nothing to do with the buying or selling. The fact that some people base the decisions on emotions about the president does not give him any actual affect.

Thanks for displaying your worthless ego yet again.

The truth hurts, but it will set you free from your worship of the government.

The fact that you actually think business people, who are the stingiest people on earth, spend 700+M based on emotions, I highly doubt your competence as an analyst.

Facts are facts. Though I doubt any of them would tell you they were basing their decisions on Trump bring the president...you likely made that part up.

Trump’s campaign policies.
Commercial properties need to be populated by people who are employed and surrounded by communities that provide services and products.
But you already knew this.
Please stop displaying your ego driven stupidity.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

Not in Nassau County.
Maybe you saw trespassers.

Nassau county always had a better UE rate than the country as a whole.

Their UE rate fell 51% under Obama.

You are full of shit, nothing changed after the election

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a post from another thread.

In all seriousness, I'd like to know what you think of it. Please be as complete in your response as you would like. I have provided a chart of the unemployment rate below for your reference.

Thanks.

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You are a true, loyal partisan.


.

LOL...How do you see yourself?

You could respond to my post rather than being a partisan contrarian.

 

[Third Party]

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You over react-things were already on the mend before Obama.

On the mend?
You should take another look at mac's chart.

Charts are like polls-they say what you want to interpret. When you live thru something, you have a feel for how things are.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is anyone arguing that taxation policy does NOT directly affect the employment rate?

We all agree that raising taxes tends to increase unemployment, right?

Let's just be clear on that point, can we?

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Yeah yeah, I know all about your family members that you live vicariously through.

The president had nothing to do with the buying or selling. The fact that some people base the decisions on emotions about the president does not give him any actual affect.

Thanks for displaying your worthless ego yet again.

The truth hurts, but it will set you free from your worship of the government.

The fact that you actually think business people, who are the stingiest people on earth, spend 700+M based on emotions, I highly doubt your competence as an analyst.

Facts are facts. Though I doubt any of them would tell you they were basing their decisions on Trump bring the president...you likely made that part up.

Trump’s campaign policies.
Commercial properties need to be populated by people who are employed and surrounded by communities that provide services and products.
But you already knew this.
Please stop displaying your ego driven stupidity.

The UE rate when Trump took office was already at what economist consider full employment. The people making these decisions would know that...even if you are too stupid to.

 

[Indeependent]

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

Not in Nassau County.
Maybe you saw trespassers.

Nassau county always had a better UE rate than the country as a whole.

Their UE rate fell 51% under Obama.

You are full of shit, nothing changed after the election

Hempstead Turnpike saw a record number of vacancies under Obama.
Now the Turnpike consists of almost completely new construction.
Please do attempt to generalize.
We always had people serving food.
Now we have malls and almost unbearable traffic.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not a trump supporter, but Obama had the easy ground to cover.

Easy ground?
That would be Trump's play. Obama carried it 99 yards and left it on the 2 yardline. Trump only had to go over the middle to take it in.

Bush was a bad president-clean up was easy for the next guy. I can take this on a personal level-things were crap for me and many I knew until Trump took over-within 6 months, things were MUCH better-we have to assume it was the POTUS at the time.

Easy? Seconds away from a complete collapse of the economy, losing nearly a million jobs a month leads to an easy recovery?
You people are daft.

You are a true, loyal partisan.


.

LOL...How do you see yourself?

You could respond to my post rather than being a partisan contrarian.

What part of "presidents have little effect on the employment rate" do you not understand?

.

 

[Care4all]

As expected so far.

As expected, you have no response so far to the facts presented.

But there were no facts presented in that post and none in yours so far either....

All made up BS and rewriting of actual history imo.

 

[Indeependent]

Thanks for displaying your worthless ego yet again.

The truth hurts, but it will set you free from your worship of the government.

The fact that you actually think business people, who are the stingiest people on earth, spend 700+M based on emotions, I highly doubt your competence as an analyst.

Facts are facts. Though I doubt any of them would tell you they were basing their decisions on Trump bring the president...you likely made that part up.

Trump’s campaign policies.
Commercial properties need to be populated by people who are employed and surrounded by communities that provide services and products.
But you already knew this.
Please stop displaying your ego driven stupidity.

The UE rate when Trump took office was already at what economist consider full employment. The people making these decisions would know that...even if you are too stupid to.

That was U6?
Where everybody was employed when they weren’t?
Yeah, GW had a way of disguising his global economy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Your point is that Obama actually had a substantial impact on unemployment. That is bullshit. Neither has Trump.

But, even if we assume that Obama DID have some substantial impact on unemployment (he didn't), based on that chart Mac provided, Obama spent 8 fucking years getting us back to where we were before the sub-prime crash. And, that's only AFTER he let us lose another 2-4%, taking us up to 10% unemployment.

The reality is that the president has little impact on employment. Only taxing policy can directly effect employment rates.

.

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Your point is that Obama actually had a substantial impact on unemployment. That is bullshit. Neither has Trump.

But, even if we assume that Obama DID have some substantial impact on unemployment (he didn't), based on that chart Mac provided, Obama spent 8 fucking years getting us back to where we were before the sub-prime crash. And, that's only AFTER he let us lose another 2-4%, taking us up to 10% unemployment.

The reality is that the president has little impact on employment. Only taxing policy can directly effect employment rates.

.

Now you're engaging in the exact behavior Mac was pointing to with this thread.

Under normal circumstances you would have a point. Obama in no way walked into normal economic circumstances. Not by any measure.

And, you have, again, missed my point by assuming, even when I told you.

I said that presidents have little effect on employment.

Then, I said, let's assume that they do. Then, pointed out how, assuming the presidents have a substantial impact on employment rates (they don't), Obama sucked. So, your false point of Obama positively impacting the employment rate fails regardless. The unemployment rate went all the way to 10% after Obama took over. I don't believe that was Obama's fault, but if you are going to sit here and try to give him credit for getting the employment rate back to where it was before, you will lose that false point.

.

You missed the point with your contrary partisan point.

In the wake of the collapse of the entire banking system and with the loss of nearly a million jobs a month, obviously what a president does to bring stability would have a rather large effect on jobs and unemployment.

And what would that be?

.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No.
He started in his own endzone. In the hole and losing ground.

There was no defense, nothing standing in Trump's way. That's why I said he just had to go over the top.


Why do you have to be so dopey and contrary all the time? My point was obvious.

Maybe we should just agree that your analogy is shitty.

Obama took over after a sub-prime mortgage crash, which was something that was NOT caused by Bush (even though you want to accuse him of it).

After taking over, Obama lost another 2%, with an all-democrat government. That was not necessarily Obama's fault or the Democrats (except maybe their taxation policy).

The reality is that, other than taxation policy, the president has little effect on the unemployment rate.



.

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

People getting laid off and those working had shitty paychecks that never saw increases.

Great. So what was the unemployment rate though?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Is anyone arguing that taxation policy does NOT directly affect the employment rate?

We all agree that raising taxes tends to increase unemployment, right?

Let's just be clear on that point, can we?

.

I think you would be hard pressed to find any actual data to support this claim.

While it seems that it should be true, there is no tangible data backing it up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My point was clear. You just didn't accept it. Obama left us nearly at full employment

Not from what I saw on the ground! He had a mediocre presidency at best.

You didn't see nearly full employment?

What did you see?

Not in Nassau County.
Maybe you saw trespassers.

Nassau county always had a better UE rate than the country as a whole.

Their UE rate fell 51% under Obama.

You are full of shit, nothing changed after the election

Hempstead Turnpike saw a record number of vacancies under Obama.
Now the Turnpike consists of almost completely new construction.
Please do attempt to generalize.
We always had people serving food.
Now we have malls and almost unbearable traffic.

I am sure you have the data to back up this claim? Like the difference between Jan 2017 and now.

Not that I don’t believe you...well actually I don’t