Rasmussen poll - Trump's approval ratings hit six-month high

[Promo]

Yep,... that post pretty much guarantees that an MBA is the limit of "its" achievement achieved.

What?? What does that even mean?

My greatest achievements are my two beautiful and successful daughters.

Is your only goal on Terb to insult people? Let your hate go old-fella!

 

[Bud Plug]

The Author's name was in the article. Top right. Did you even look at the article?

As expected - Ad hominem. You attacked me, you attacked the author and you attacked the website (incorrectly I might add), yet you weren't able to dispute any of the article's content. I already said I can provide additional articles, but since you weren't able to rebut any points in this one, what makes you think you could even understand one that included detailed technical analysis.

---------------------------------------
Okay, lets put this to bed:

Your chart: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate
You are saying your chart proves that Obama's economic and job numbers were poor (really just job numbers, LFPR doesn't directly measure economic indicators) because the LFPR steadily decreased during his Presidency. Your chart includes data from Dec 2017 until now - during Trump's Presidency. Trump claims RECORD economic and job growth for the last 12 months. yet .... your key indicator LFPR .... has remained absolutely flat for Trump's 12 months ....... according to your logic Trump accomplished nothing! How do you explain that Bud Plug ?

Experienced technical analysts, realize that LFPR requires analysis of other key indicators before conclusions can be drawn (except you of course). My supplied article explains Trump's performance to-date, even predicted it. Trump may have produced significant new job numbers in his first 12 months (in-fact he did) .... which proves that you are wrong and LFPR cannot be used as the sole measure. You either bull sh*tted or have no idea about what you are talking about.

Bud Plug, can you explain (all stats taken from your article):
1) The unemployment rate steadily declined under Obama and so far has been flat under Trump. On the surface looks like Obama did better than Trump ....
2) Initial jobless claims steadily declined under Obama and so far has increased under Trump. On the surface looks like Obama did better than Trump ....
3) US Employed Persons steadily increased under Obama and maintained the same trendline for Trump. Looks like Obama did just fine and Trump is doing about the same ......
Almost every (not all) indicator (using trend lines) shows Obama has either matched or exceeded Trump. Of course technical analysts (i.e. MBAs) know there is more to the story. Can you explain those factors Bud?

Remember, I identify conservative center. Because I don't have hate blinders on, I can still appreciate many of the good things Obama has accomplished.

I'm only going to respond enough to demonstrate the futility of debating these issues on an internet board with a stranger whose real life expertise is unknowable.

I now see the author. He doesn't appear top right. He appears left of the article. He's not an economist. Since I looked pretty thoroughly for him before posting, it will remain a mystery why his name was not visible last time I checked the link. However, Quartz is exactly what I said it was (which they describe themselves as) and the author is the type of journalist I expected him to be. He's now at Vice.

As to your questions, here are the answers you no doubt could have deduced without me having to to go to the trouble of writing them:

1. I've already said that the unemployment rate, as measured, is not very helpful. For example, the unemployment rate can actually go up when more people attempt to reenter the job market as a result of optimism about their prospects.

2. You mean down from the huge spike that occurred in 2009 under Obama's watch? Unless Obama wants to claim the spike as well, I'd say this indicator is not too helpful.

3. Again, not too helpful, for the reasons including the one you point out.

The bottom line is that you need nothing more than logic to know that you are heading towards an unhealthy economy when there are fewer working to support greater numbers who are not, and the government is borrowing money at an unprecedented rate at the same time.

The real common sense question you should be asking yourself is, if everything was so economically great under Obama, why did so many Americans think it wasn't, to the point they were prepared to take a real gamble and elect a non-politician to try to change things up? The truth is, these voters didn't look at any charts. They were able to compare their standard of living in 2008 to 2016 without looking at a single website or tome of analytical bluster.

 

[Promo]

I'm only going to respond enough to demonstrate the futility of debating these issues on an internet board with a stranger whose real life expertise is unknowable.

lol. What has my (or your) real life expertise have to do with anything? You made a statement. I supplied proof your statement was in error. Feel free to rebut with fact supported by quality evidence

I now see the author. He doesn't appear top right. He appears left of the article. He's not an economist. Since I looked pretty thoroughly for him before posting, it will remain a mystery why his name was not visible last time I checked the link. However, Quartz is exactly what I said it was (which they describe themselves as) and the author is the type of journalist I expected him to be. He's now at Vice.

Repeat: More Ad hominem. You attacked me, you attacked the author and you attacked the website (AGAIN incorrectly I might add), yet you weren't able to dispute any of the article's content.
Repeat: I could provide almost indisputable proof and you would default to your standard MO: ........, you would endlessly argue some unimportant minutiae of this discussion.
The name was always there. I researched the author before I posted the link as I wanted to make sure he had credibility.
Authors have to be bright and good at research and writing, no requirement to be long-time experts on the subject matter. But it doesn't matter, can you disprove the article?

As to your questions, here are the answers you no doubt could have deduced without me having to to go to the trouble of writing them:
1. I've already said that the unemployment rate, as measured, is not very helpful. For example, the unemployment rate can actually go up when more people attempt to reenter the job market as a result of optimism about their prospects.
2. You mean down from the huge spike that occurred in 2009 under Obama's watch? Unless Obama wants to claim the spike as well, I'd say this indicator is not too helpful.
3. Again, not too helpful, for the reasons including the one you point out.

I love it, you fell for my little trap! Either you completely missed my point, or as I really believe, you realize you've been caught BSing. Each of those performance indicators I intentionally picked clearly shows that Obama outperformed Trump in his first 12 months of office. Even your LFPR indicator is flat for Trump. Combined they show Obama did pretty good in his 8 years, sorry that fact doesn't suit your hate-filled agenda.

The bottom line is that you need nothing more than logic to know that you are heading towards an unhealthy economy when there are fewer working to support greater numbers who are not, and the government is borrowing money at an unprecedented rate at the same time.

You just described Trump's first 12 months and to be fair, no fault of his. I disagree with this situation guarantees an unhealthy economy - you need to work on your logic. Removing red-tape, reducing taxes (as long as you reduce gov't spending), reducing regulation (as long as you don't reduce protections), improving productivity by investing in technology/automation, etc, etc. will make a difference. Trump is doing many of these things and the economy is responding nicely. He needs to reduce gov't spending much more as currently he is running record deficit numbers.

The real common sense question you should be asking yourself is, if everything was so economically great under Obama, why did so many Americans think it wasn't, to the point they were prepared to take a real gamble and elect a non-politician to try to change things up? The truth is, these voters didn't look at any charts. They were able to compare their standard of living in 2008 to 2016 without looking at a single website or tome of analytical bluster.

We've already discussed in great detail what Hillary did wrong. How about a more applicable theoretical question: If Obama could have run for a 3rd term, would Trump have still won?

Anyway, that was a weak attempt at pivoting from our original discussion point. In summary you tried to BS, then tried Ad hominem, then tried arguing unimportant minutiae and now you are trying pivoting. Look, you got caught lying, best to just shut-up.

 

[Bud Plug]

lol. What has my (or your) real life expertise have to do with anything? You made a statement. I supplied proof your statement was in error. Feel free to rebut with fact supported by quality evidence


Repeat: More Ad hominem. You attacked me, you attacked the author and you attacked the website (AGAIN incorrectly I might add), yet you weren't able to dispute any of the article's content.
Repeat: I could provide almost indisputable proof and you would default to your standard MO: ........, you would endlessly argue some unimportant minutiae of this discussion.
The name was always there. I researched the author before I posted the link as I wanted to make sure he had credibility.
Authors have to be bright and good at research and writing, no requirement to be long-time experts on the subject matter. But it doesn't matter, can you disprove the article?


I love it, you fell for my little trap! Either you completely missed my point, or as I really believe, you realize you've been caught BSing. Each of those performance indicators I intentionally picked clearly shows that Obama outperformed Trump in his first 12 months of office. Even your LFPR indicator is flat for Trump. Combined they show Obama did pretty good in his 8 years, sorry that fact doesn't suit your hate-filled agenda.


You just described Trump's first 12 months and to be fair, no fault of his. I disagree with this situation guarantees an unhealthy economy - you need to work on your logic. Removing red-tape, reducing taxes (as long as you reduce gov't spending), reducing regulation (as long as you don't reduce protections), improving productivity by investing in technology/automation, etc, etc. will make a difference. Trump is doing many of these things and the economy is responding nicely. He needs to reduce gov't spending much more as currently he is running record deficit numbers.


We've already discussed in great detail what Hillary did wrong. How about a more applicable theoretical question: If Obama could have run for a 3rd term, would Trump have still won?

Anyway, that was a weak attempt at pivoting from our original discussion point. In summary you tried to BS, then tried Ad hominem, then tried arguing unimportant minutiae and now you are trying pivoting. Look, you got caught lying, best to just shut-up.

Silliness and sophomoric argument from beginning to end. Best example - "you fell for my little trap". You contradict yourself without realizing it. Would be comedy gold, except you state it in earnest. You're not ready for the big leagues. Since I'm not here to work, nuff said.

 

[Anbarandy]

Pretzel-ized in real time!

 

[Frankfooter]

Trump is still polling at 39% according to 538.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Trump also cited a poll that says 66% are happy with the economy, but didn't mention that same poll says 49% thank Obama for the state of the economy vs 40% for Trump.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...le-voters-opinion-us-presidents-a8153346.html

That same poll also found that 57% say he's not fit to be president.
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-poll-us-has-faith-in-economy-but-not-trump-mental-fitness2018-1

 

[Promo]

Silliness and sophomoric argument from beginning to end. Best example - "you fell for my little trap". You contradict yourself without realizing it. Would be comedy gold, except you state it in earnest. You're not ready for the big leagues. Since I'm not here to work, nuff said.

You're not even good at cheap-shotting me.

Why are you here on Terb? Since I've started to pay attention to some of your posts, it seems your only purpose is to create fake facts. Why do your fellow alt-righters mostly ignore you in your goal? Normally you guys all stick together.

Anyway, enough said.

 

[Bud Plug]

You're not even good at cheap-shotting me.

Why are you here on Terb? Since I've started to pay attention to some of your posts, it seems your only purpose is to create fake facts. Why do your fellow alt-righters mostly ignore you in your goal? Normally you guys all stick together.

Anyway, enough said.

I'm here on TERB (at this point in time (I've been a long time member)) because I enjoy debunking nonsense and pointing out poser opinions on matters within my own real world expertise, or on general principles of logic, for short stints at a time. Trump Derangement Syndrome has offered unlimited opportunity for this. I realize that most people on this forum aren't here to be persuaded of anything, and many are incapable of critical thinking or productive dialogue, so at best, posting on TERB is a personal release. Kind of like shouting at bad drivers from your sealed car, knowing they couldn't possibly hear you. Then it gets boring and I turn to other diversions for a while.

Contrary to your so-called analysis of my posts (there are those fabled MBA skillz at work again!), I don't associate, and have never associated, myself with the so-called alt-right (whoever that is, exactly), or view myself as part of any coalition of other posters. In fact, if you really paid attention to my posts you would see that there are some posters I agree with on some issues and disagree with on others. I describe myself as a frequent Trump supporter. I mean that literally. However, that doesn't mean I agree with Trump in all respects, and I've posted to that effect. But criticism of Trump is so frequently misplaced or exaggerated, it's much more interesting to focus my posting on that.

Maybe this response will provoke some introspection on your part as to why you are here?

 

[Promo]

I'm here on TERB (at this point in time (I've been a long time member)) because I enjoy debunking nonsense and pointing out poser opinions on matters within my own real world expertise, or on general principles of logic, for short stints at a time. Trump Derangement Syndrome has offered unlimited opportunity for this. I realize that most people on this forum aren't here to be persuaded of anything, and many are incapable of critical thinking or productive dialogue, so at best, posting on TERB is a personal release. Kind of like shouting at bad drivers from your sealed car, knowing they couldn't possibly hear you. Then it gets boring and I turn to other diversions for a while.

Contrary to your so-called analysis of my posts (more nasty insults), I don't associate, and have never associated, myself with the so-called alt-right (whoever that is, exactly), or view myself as part of any coalition of other posters. In fact, if you really paid attention to my posts you would see that there are some posters I agree with on some issues and disagree with on others. I describe myself as a frequent Trump supporter. I mean that literally. However, that doesn't mean I agree with Trump in all respects, and I've posted to that effect. But criticism of Trump is so frequently misplaced or exaggerated, it's much more interesting to focus my posting on that.

How can someone "debunk" others by utilizing false facts , exaggerations, and outright lies? When challenged by others who use verifiable proof, why do you attack the poster and pivot the conversation?

How can someone who uses (proven) false information in their posts claim others are incapable of critical thinking?

How can someone who uses (proven) lies in their posts claim others aren't capable of productive dialogue?

 

[Frankfooter]

Contrary to your so-called analysis of my posts (there are those fabled MBA skillz at work again!), I don't associate, and have never associated, myself with the so-called alt-right (whoever that is, exactly), or view myself as part of any coalition of other posters. In fact, if you really paid attention to my posts you would see that there are some posters I agree with on some issues and disagree with on others. I describe myself as a frequent Trump supporter. I mean that literally. However, that doesn't mean I agree with Trump in all respects, and I've posted to that effect. But criticism of Trump is so frequently misplaced or exaggerated, it's much more interesting to focus my posting on that.

Maybe this response will provoke some introspection on your part as to why you are here?

The largest thread you took part in was your defence of neo-nazi terrorist, James Field, where you claimed you had more information and better research then the D.A.

 

[Bud Plug]

How can someone "debunk" others by utilizing false facts , exaggerations, and outright lies? When challenged by others who use verifiable proof, why do you attack the poster and pivot the conversation?

How can someone who uses (proven) false information in their posts claim others are incapable of critical thinking?

How can someone who uses (proven) lies in their posts claim others aren't capable of productive dialogue?

Nope, no introspection. Maybe when you settle down.

p.s. "Proven" doesn't mean what you think it means.