Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[Indeependent]

You say that.
The statements say nothing about the economy in term of other entities.
Simon makes money from rent, not from the success of the renters.
They go about a month between vendors for each store that is left vacant; that hardly reflects on the impact of the 120 businesses and the people affected by success or failure.
Your inability or unwillingness to understand this, displays your emotional investment in your particular view of the economy.
But I do know a few people who think like you do and I have worked with many on Wall Street who only think this way.
There is validity to your point of view if that is how you make money or invest.

You call their financial statement a farce because it lacks some information.

Then you make claims and never, ever, have even one tiny piece of information other than “because I said so”. Does that not make you an even bigger farce?

I do not have an unwillingness to understand, I have an unwillingness to blindly accept what you say as fact. I have this for two reasons.

One, because you never support your claims. I am a data wonk, I do not take things on blind faith, do not accept what people tell me with some support for their claims.
Two, because every single bit of data I have found is 100% the opposite of what you say is the case.

So, I am stuck between believing the data or someone that has no data...which way do you think I will go 100% of the time?

You are repetitively misstating what I am posting and
still missing the point that gave Obama 2 terms in the Oval Office.

The success/failure of an one entity does not indicate the success/failure of one or more other entities.

“Financial Firms” are raking it in and so the economy is booming.
Of course those taking loans from those entities could not pay off those loans but the powers that be ignored those “insignificant” problems.
This POV resulted in one minor crash and two huge crashes.

And that why the Ronald Reagan “Gambling Casino” paradigm where all eyes are on the success/failure of “The House” is actually a functional mirage.

And that’s what puts Trump in the Oval Office.

I do not misstate what you post. What you post are bold claims without ever one iota of evidence to back them up. That is the bottom line, what you claim in your post is nothing but fantasy till it can be supported.

My last comment on this subject...
The very micro second before the DOT COM and Housing Crashes the market, based on your evidence, was good as gold.

Not true at all, there were massive warning signs that both were imminent. Many analysts predicted them happening based upon the data.

That is why data is so much better than the “because I said so” method that you try to pass off

The warning signs were the multitude of my type of “little details” that guys like you were ignoring.
I worked for brokerage firms at the time so don’t even try telling me that the info they were instructed to work off of indicated anything to them.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You call their financial statement a farce because it lacks some information.

Then you make claims and never, ever, have even one tiny piece of information other than “because I said so”. Does that not make you an even bigger farce?

I do not have an unwillingness to understand, I have an unwillingness to blindly accept what you say as fact. I have this for two reasons.

One, because you never support your claims. I am a data wonk, I do not take things on blind faith, do not accept what people tell me with some support for their claims.
Two, because every single bit of data I have found is 100% the opposite of what you say is the case.

So, I am stuck between believing the data or someone that has no data...which way do you think I will go 100% of the time?

You are repetitively misstating what I am posting and
still missing the point that gave Obama 2 terms in the Oval Office.

The success/failure of an one entity does not indicate the success/failure of one or more other entities.

“Financial Firms” are raking it in and so the economy is booming.
Of course those taking loans from those entities could not pay off those loans but the powers that be ignored those “insignificant” problems.
This POV resulted in one minor crash and two huge crashes.

And that why the Ronald Reagan “Gambling Casino” paradigm where all eyes are on the success/failure of “The House” is actually a functional mirage.

And that’s what puts Trump in the Oval Office.

I do not misstate what you post. What you post are bold claims without ever one iota of evidence to back them up. That is the bottom line, what you claim in your post is nothing but fantasy till it can be supported.

My last comment on this subject...
The very micro second before the DOT COM and Housing Crashes the market, based on your evidence, was good as gold.

Not true at all, there were massive warning signs that both were imminent. Many analysts predicted them happening based upon the data.

That is why data is so much better than the “because I said so” method that you try to pass off

The warning signs were the multitude of my type of “little details” that guys like you were ignoring.
I worked for brokerage firms at the time so don’t even try telling me that the info they were instructed to work off of indicated anything to them.

You have no little details, all you have is stories. Nobody takes stories seriously if they are not supported with facts.

Many people saw it coming and made bank off of it.

 

[Indeependent]

You are repetitively misstating what I am posting and
still missing the point that gave Obama 2 terms in the Oval Office.

The success/failure of an one entity does not indicate the success/failure of one or more other entities.

“Financial Firms” are raking it in and so the economy is booming.
Of course those taking loans from those entities could not pay off those loans but the powers that be ignored those “insignificant” problems.
This POV resulted in one minor crash and two huge crashes.

And that why the Ronald Reagan “Gambling Casino” paradigm where all eyes are on the success/failure of “The House” is actually a functional mirage.

And that’s what puts Trump in the Oval Office.

I do not misstate what you post. What you post are bold claims without ever one iota of evidence to back them up. That is the bottom line, what you claim in your post is nothing but fantasy till it can be supported.

My last comment on this subject...
The very micro second before the DOT COM and Housing Crashes the market, based on your evidence, was good as gold.

Not true at all, there were massive warning signs that both were imminent. Many analysts predicted them happening based upon the data.

That is why data is so much better than the “because I said so” method that you try to pass off

The warning signs were the multitude of my type of “little details” that guys like you were ignoring.
I worked for brokerage firms at the time so don’t even try telling me that the info they were instructed to work off of indicated anything to them.

You have no little details, all you have is stories. Nobody takes stories seriously if they are not supported with facts.

Many people saw it coming and made bank off of it.

Show me a web site where entities display their failures.
Yes, Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan made billions...I hear you made millions.
Get used to seeing smileys.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Show me a web site where entities display their failures.
Yes, Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan made billions...I hear you made millions.
Get used to seeing smileys.

Once again all you have is “because I said so”, no wonder you got replaced by someone that understands that business people want data and facts, not stories.

I have never claimed to have made millions, the fact you choose to lie about me only highlights why I should not believe your baseless stories

 

[Crixus]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

 

[Mac1958]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

 

[Crixus]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

 

[B. Kidd]

I think this post is almost a half year old, posted by a slimy non-committal loser.

True story!

 

[Blackrook]

The unemployment numbers under Obama were "fake news" because they did not count the millions of Americans who had given up looking for a job and were, therefore, no longer "unemployed."

 

[B. Kidd]

The unemployment numbers under Obama were "fake news" because they did not count the millions of Americans who had given up looking for a job and were, therefore, no longer "unemployed."

Actually, over 90 per cent of new jobs created under Obie were part-time, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer differentiated new jobs between full-time and part-time.
Another true story!

 

[Mac1958]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The unemployment numbers under Obama were "fake news" because they did not count the millions of Americans who had given up looking for a job and were, therefore, no longer "unemployed."

Actually, over 90 per cent of new jobs created under Obie were part-time, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer differentiated new jobs between full-time and part-time.
Another true story!

fake news.

 

[Faun]

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.

It's almost as moronic as this post of his...

The funny part is - it took Obama 7 years to create a million jobs. It took President Trump 7 months.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

 

[Faun]

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.

Hey dumb ass...read your own chart. The decline doesn’t begin until after the 2010 ass kicking in which Republicans took control of the House and thousands of state and local seats across the nation (such as Scott Walker in Wisconsin).

God you are a mindless minion.

Liar. The decline began in 2009, a year before Republicans won the House in the 2010 election.

 

[Faun]

The unemployment numbers under Obama were "fake news" because they did not count the millions of Americans who had given up looking for a job and were, therefore, no longer "unemployed."

Unemployed are counted the same way towards the unemployment rate now as they were then; as they were before Obama became president.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

It's almost as moronic as this post of his...

The funny part is - it took Obama 7 years to create a million jobs. It took President Trump 7 months.

The thing is, I think they really believe stuff like that.
.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

It's just a post. They got a button that makes it so you can't see them. Are you miffed at the post?

I'm fascinated by it, and the psychology behind it.

I notice you didn't want to answer the question.

That's interesting too.
.

Maybe I'm to simple? I have never had a hard time making the money I want or need. Bush, Obama or Trump, none of them or their charts effect me. What's fascinating?

What's fascinating about it has nothing to do with you. It's about how far Trumpsters will go to distort reality.

The poster said "Obama took unemployment over 10%", clearly inferring that the high unemployment rate was somehow Obama's fault, and not the result of the effects of the Meltdown that we all know he inherited.

Or, maybe you really don't know that. No way for me to tell.
.

It did not go over 10% and it did not go up for Obama's first two years. The post was total bullshit and 46 pages later the sheep are still defending it.

I assume they get that stuff from their alternate universe websites.
.

 

[Faun]

The unemployment numbers under Obama were "fake news" because they did not count the millions of Americans who had given up looking for a job and were, therefore, no longer "unemployed."

Actually, over 90 per cent of new jobs created under Obie were part-time, as the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer differentiated new jobs between full-time and part-time.
Another true story!

That too is a rightard lie...

Part time jobs (1.5m)...​

Full time jobs (+8.5m)...​

1.5m out of 10m is 15%, not 90%.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

Unemploment was 8% when Obama was sworn in an peaked in the Third Quarter in 2009 - During the First Quarter of Obama's First Fiscal Year which started October 1, 2009.