Trump supporters: What do you think of this post?

[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.

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.

.

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.

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

 

[Indeependent]

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

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.

 

[Indeependent]

You are assuming Mac's intent. Don't assume.
.

What do you think Mac's intent was? "Innocently" uncovering partisanship only?

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

I agree, except to the extent that Obama tried to artificially manipulate the unemployment rate by making a bunch of "shovel-ready" part-time, short-term jobs. Those were not quality jobs, but the point is that neither Obama nor Trump improved the quality of jobs available, because they can't.

.

I humbly disagree based on what people in high places are telling me.
In fact, one of those people who made a bet with me that Trump would lose, has graciously taken my wife and myself out for dinner at extremely expensive restaurants several times.

 

[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.

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.

.

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.

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.

.

 

[Third Party]

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

What do I think he intended?

To show that Presidents have no substantial impact on unemployment or the economy. I agree, except to the extent that I believe (with good reason) that taxation policy has an impact on employment.

.

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

.

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.

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.

 

[Indeependent]

The quality of jobs were directly affected.

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

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.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

I am now convinced that (a) they have made no effort to understand what happened up to and after the Meltdown, and (b) are more than content to remain willfully ignorant about it because they're satisfied to remain encased in their alternative, closed circuit, informational and ideological universe.

The way I see it, the deplorables of flyover country were butt hurt because they felt America wasn't paying attention to them anymore, but this isn't exactly what I consider a demographic of educated voters. Many are deep red hard liner types that vote by committee rather than research the individual policies. So, by electing a douche canoe with a similar superficial mentality regarding politics as well as a patriotism and nationalist fetish (Rah, rah, MAGA!), these folks have used social media and memes to propel themselves into the spotlight. Now that they have the spotlight, they have absolutely nothing of substance to say, because they never paid any attention in the first place.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not by the President

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

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.

 

[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.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

He left 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving every month under Obama to trump gaining 1,000 manufacturing jobs...
They people had to work at McDonald’s because of Obama’s..

Lol obama is a joke

Manufacturing quit losing jobs in Feb 2010 and have been growing ever since

I thought Obama said they were all going away? Was he lying?

 

[Indeependent]

When’s the last time you were at a convention of hundreds of people buying and selling near billion dollar commercial properties?

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.

 

[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.

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.

.

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.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Left what? Lol

What is the subject of the thread? Does that really need to be explained to you?

He left 1,600 manufacturing jobs leaving every month under Obama to trump gaining 1,000 manufacturing jobs...
They people had to work at McDonald’s because of Obama’s..

Lol obama is a joke

Manufacturing quit losing jobs in Feb 2010 and have been growing ever since

I thought Obama said they were all going away? Was he lying?

No, he never said that. Whoever told you he did is lying

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

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.

.

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.

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 are far too generous, be was the 2nd worst in my opinion.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

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.

.

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.

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?

 

[Third Party]

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

 

[Erinwltr]

Were you planning on providing your opinion of the post in the OP?

No context provided.

Okay, here ya go!

Post 442 in this thread, all the context you'll need: The radicalization of the left
.

There was plenty of context in the OP but this is even better.

 

[Indeependent]

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?

Not in Nassau County.
Maybe you saw trespassers.