What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Adumb Schifferbrains is ensuring a Trump victory in 2020.

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
69,346
Reaction score
19,349
Points
2,220
And also greatly improving the chances America throws the Dimwingers out of control in the House.

This pencil necked bug-eyed moron is taking the entire party down with his impeachment debacle.

:5_1_12024::5_1_12024::5_1_12024:


Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next

Adam Schiff has made a complete hash of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. The decision by the California Democrat and House Intelligence Committee chairman to conduct the first series of interviews behind closed doors allowed Republicans to appropriately brand the enterprise as unfair and clandestine.

His next step, orchestrating a steady stream of leaks and disclosures timed and edited for maximum impact, all but guaranteed that last week’s subsequent live hearings would be anti-climactic.

Schiff stole his own thunder.


In addition, he has not been straightforward about his dealings with the whistleblower, who initially was pivotal to charges against the president but who is now deemed inconsequential by Schiff.

It is common knowledge that the initial complaint was launched by a Democrat with ties to President Trump’s adversaries. That revelation has sucked even more legitimacy from the investigation.

As a result of these several missteps, the public is wary of what has emerged as an obviously partisan attack on a duly elected president. Worse, they are also, already, bored and, we’re not even in the home stretch.

If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Adding to the public’s ennui is that the resolution of the impeachment is a foregone conclusion. It’s like Agatha Christie revealing whodunit in Chapter One; it steals the story’s punch.

We know Democrats will press forward with their tiresome questioning and posturing, hoping to convince the nation that the hearings are something bigger and nobler than a political stunt. They will vote to impeach; that has always been a foregone conclusion.

The carnival will then move to the Senate, which will ultimately hold a trial and find the president not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats know this; they know there is no real purpose to their impeachment thrust but to undermine Mr. Trump before the 2020 campaign.

It's a risky way to win an election. If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Also, a partisan investigation will energize Trump supporters and drive turnout among Republicans.

Even the Trump-hating New York Times struggled to find much meaning in the impeachment proceedings. In their coverage of the first day of hearings, reporter Peter Baker was reduced to glorifying star witness and diplomat William Taylor’s appearance: “the image, at least, of a wise, fatherly figure” with a “chiseled face and reassuring gray hair” whose “deep baritone voice [was] reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.” Channeling Gregory Peck apparently enhances Taylor’s credibility.

The liberal media did hyperventilate over Taylor’s “new” revelation that someone on his staff “asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine.” Sondland, according to the aide, according to Taylor, said the president “cares more about the investigations of Bidens.” In other words, third-hand hearsay.

Disappointing to Democrats, Taylor refused to climb aboard the impeachment train. Moreover, that Taylor had never once met with or talked to President Trump undermined the impact of his testimony, notwithstanding his admirable elocution.

To be sure, it is clear that Taylor disapproved of President Trump’s reportedly tying $391 million in aid to Kiev to an investigation into possible misdeeds by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He said that holding up that assistance for political purposes is wrong. It is unclear what Taylor thought of President Obama’s steadfast refusal to authorize that much-needed help during his administration.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was sent back to the United States because the White House heard she was openly critical of the president, was not even in the Ukraine when the events under review took place. The president is entitled to have representatives in foreign countries who are on his team. End of story.

Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.

As the inquiry drags on, more Americans will tune out. The TV audience on the first day of the Schiff show was far less than the number who watched the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or even Michael Cohen’s testimony.

Schiff himself was tweeting his followers to watch in an embarrassing effort to gin up enthusiasm. The audience will shrink further.

Democratic candidates slugging it out in Iowa and New Hampshire are rarely asked about impeachment. Instead, voters ask about health care and other issues; campaigners are struggling to explain how they are rewarding voters for giving their party the majority in the House.

Some of those candidates will soon view the impeachment drive as an even bigger threat. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennet and Cory Booker – all 2020 candidates – will have to participate in the eventual Senate trial. That means they will have to sit in the Senate day after day, while rivals like Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg run circles around them on the campaign trail.


It is almost inconceivable that Democrats have allowed Adam Schiff to play ringmaster for this circus. As a major author of the Russia collusion narrative, Schiff was already reviled on the right.

As he leads his own party down the impeachment rabbit hole, Schiff may come under fire from Democrats as well, and especially from those senators trying to win the primaries.


And let’s not forget the damage Schiff has done to front-runner Joe Biden. After all, the one critical part of the Ukraine story that is regurgitated with each telling is that Biden’s son Hunter monetized his father’s unique status not only in Kiev but also in China. That has soiled the former vice president’s candidacy.

The hearings are not over but it is hard to see today how impeachment will prove a winner for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi should have stuck to her guns, and never let this process move forward, and especially with Adam Schiff at the helm.

Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next
Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.
We know the aid was withheld. We know that the President continued to push for a public statement of investigation by Zelensky and that aid and the WH visit were contingent on that, according to Sondland.
What part of that is missing in your eyes?
You do realize that if someone assaults you but does not announce "This is an assault" that it is still an assault, right? It is sitting right there before your very eyes. There is no "imagination" at work here. Trump knew what Zelensky wanted. He dangled it in front of his nose and told him the favor(s) he wanted first.
End of Story.
Trump needs to be fired.


You need something besides lefty talking point lies. Try getting some facts, then come back.
They've already been given to you. You throw them on the ground. That is your problem, not mine.
Your Clown "witnesses" didn't witness anything. The two the first day told us about their feelings and impressions of what they were told.

The ambassador had nothing but telling us how butthurt she was for being reassigned.

Ya got nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Tell me what it would take for you to say they've got evidence. What would someone have had to witness in order for you to accept this?
 

Biff_Poindexter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2018
Messages
15,622
Reaction score
6,535
Points
400
Location
USA
4.1%, gosh sounds impressive. Almost as impressive as Obama's 5.5%. Trump hasn't even had a full year of 3% growth either. Missed it last year. Better luck next year because he sure as hell ain't going to do it this year.

Obama's 5.5? Lol uhm no
Oh.View attachment 290506

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.

Statistical tricks were constantly used, like the “low” unemployment rate during Obozo’s term.

That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.

U.S. GDP Grew 3.5% In The Third Quarter 2014

The Obama economy in 10 charts
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528
Wow! Wages PLUMMETED under Barry Hussein. Thanks for the graph.

What a disaster that clown was.
Yes, in 2008-2009 they plummeted...its almost like something happened a little before then.....

What was happening with the economy a little before Trump's presidency that made Trump start taking credit for it before his term ever started??
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
27,654
Reaction score
23,123
Points
2,415
And also greatly improving the chances America throws the Dimwingers out of control in the House.

This pencil necked bug-eyed moron is taking the entire party down with his impeachment debacle.

:5_1_12024::5_1_12024::5_1_12024:


Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next

Adam Schiff has made a complete hash of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. The decision by the California Democrat and House Intelligence Committee chairman to conduct the first series of interviews behind closed doors allowed Republicans to appropriately brand the enterprise as unfair and clandestine.

His next step, orchestrating a steady stream of leaks and disclosures timed and edited for maximum impact, all but guaranteed that last week’s subsequent live hearings would be anti-climactic.

Schiff stole his own thunder.


In addition, he has not been straightforward about his dealings with the whistleblower, who initially was pivotal to charges against the president but who is now deemed inconsequential by Schiff.

It is common knowledge that the initial complaint was launched by a Democrat with ties to President Trump’s adversaries. That revelation has sucked even more legitimacy from the investigation.

As a result of these several missteps, the public is wary of what has emerged as an obviously partisan attack on a duly elected president. Worse, they are also, already, bored and, we’re not even in the home stretch.

If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Adding to the public’s ennui is that the resolution of the impeachment is a foregone conclusion. It’s like Agatha Christie revealing whodunit in Chapter One; it steals the story’s punch.

We know Democrats will press forward with their tiresome questioning and posturing, hoping to convince the nation that the hearings are something bigger and nobler than a political stunt. They will vote to impeach; that has always been a foregone conclusion.

The carnival will then move to the Senate, which will ultimately hold a trial and find the president not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats know this; they know there is no real purpose to their impeachment thrust but to undermine Mr. Trump before the 2020 campaign.

It's a risky way to win an election. If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Also, a partisan investigation will energize Trump supporters and drive turnout among Republicans.

Even the Trump-hating New York Times struggled to find much meaning in the impeachment proceedings. In their coverage of the first day of hearings, reporter Peter Baker was reduced to glorifying star witness and diplomat William Taylor’s appearance: “the image, at least, of a wise, fatherly figure” with a “chiseled face and reassuring gray hair” whose “deep baritone voice [was] reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.” Channeling Gregory Peck apparently enhances Taylor’s credibility.

The liberal media did hyperventilate over Taylor’s “new” revelation that someone on his staff “asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine.” Sondland, according to the aide, according to Taylor, said the president “cares more about the investigations of Bidens.” In other words, third-hand hearsay.

Disappointing to Democrats, Taylor refused to climb aboard the impeachment train. Moreover, that Taylor had never once met with or talked to President Trump undermined the impact of his testimony, notwithstanding his admirable elocution.

To be sure, it is clear that Taylor disapproved of President Trump’s reportedly tying $391 million in aid to Kiev to an investigation into possible misdeeds by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He said that holding up that assistance for political purposes is wrong. It is unclear what Taylor thought of President Obama’s steadfast refusal to authorize that much-needed help during his administration.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was sent back to the United States because the White House heard she was openly critical of the president, was not even in the Ukraine when the events under review took place. The president is entitled to have representatives in foreign countries who are on his team. End of story.

Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.

As the inquiry drags on, more Americans will tune out. The TV audience on the first day of the Schiff show was far less than the number who watched the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or even Michael Cohen’s testimony.

Schiff himself was tweeting his followers to watch in an embarrassing effort to gin up enthusiasm. The audience will shrink further.

Democratic candidates slugging it out in Iowa and New Hampshire are rarely asked about impeachment. Instead, voters ask about health care and other issues; campaigners are struggling to explain how they are rewarding voters for giving their party the majority in the House.

Some of those candidates will soon view the impeachment drive as an even bigger threat. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennet and Cory Booker – all 2020 candidates – will have to participate in the eventual Senate trial. That means they will have to sit in the Senate day after day, while rivals like Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg run circles around them on the campaign trail.


It is almost inconceivable that Democrats have allowed Adam Schiff to play ringmaster for this circus. As a major author of the Russia collusion narrative, Schiff was already reviled on the right.

As he leads his own party down the impeachment rabbit hole, Schiff may come under fire from Democrats as well, and especially from those senators trying to win the primaries.


And let’s not forget the damage Schiff has done to front-runner Joe Biden. After all, the one critical part of the Ukraine story that is regurgitated with each telling is that Biden’s son Hunter monetized his father’s unique status not only in Kiev but also in China. That has soiled the former vice president’s candidacy.

The hearings are not over but it is hard to see today how impeachment will prove a winner for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi should have stuck to her guns, and never let this process move forward, and especially with Adam Schiff at the helm.

Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next
Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.
We know the aid was withheld. We know that the President continued to push for a public statement of investigation by Zelensky and that aid and the WH visit were contingent on that, according to Sondland.
What part of that is missing in your eyes?
You do realize that if someone assaults you but does not announce "This is an assault" that it is still an assault, right? It is sitting right there before your very eyes. There is no "imagination" at work here. Trump knew what Zelensky wanted. He dangled it in front of his nose and told him the favor(s) he wanted first.
End of Story.
Trump needs to be fired.


You need something besides lefty talking point lies. Try getting some facts, then come back.
They've already been given to you. You throw them on the ground. That is your problem, not mine.
Your Clown "witnesses" didn't witness anything. The two the first day told us about their feelings and impressions of what they were told.

The ambassador had nothing but telling us how butthurt she was for being reassigned.

Ya got nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Tell me what it would take for you to say they've got evidence. What would someone have had to witness in order for you to accept this?
Actual evidence.

Next?
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
27,654
Reaction score
23,123
Points
2,415

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.

Statistical tricks were constantly used, like the “low” unemployment rate during Obozo’s term.

That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.

U.S. GDP Grew 3.5% In The Third Quarter 2014

The Obama economy in 10 charts
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528
Wow! Wages PLUMMETED under Barry Hussein. Thanks for the graph.

What a disaster that clown was.
Yes, in 2008-2009 they plummeted...its almost like something happened a little before then.....

What was happening with the economy a little before Trump's presidency that made Trump start taking credit for it before his term ever started??
According to your graph they were at around 3.75% growth when Barry Hussein took over......Obama handed Trump negative growth numbers.

What a clown he was.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,551
Reaction score
17,899
Points
2,210
4.1%, gosh sounds impressive. Almost as impressive as Obama's 5.5%. Trump hasn't even had a full year of 3% growth either. Missed it last year. Better luck next year because he sure as hell ain't going to do it this year.

Obama's 5.5? Lol uhm no

Q2 2014 real GDP growth was 5.5%. It's true.

Oh one quarter....what was Ear's overall GDP?

It doesn't matter I've already stated GDP is now a weak indicator of how an economy is doing. Under Trump the economy is booming.

It was one quarter as the previous poster pointed to Trump's best quarter which was substantially less than Obama's best quarter.

Where did you get the weird idea that service industry isn't included in the GDP? What you said is untrue.

Get educated....there are many different types of "services"

Why GDP is not an accurate measure of economic growth
Yet here you were, boasting about a prediction of 5.4% (actual was 2.5%) ...
Atlanta Fed predicting 5.4% GDP growth in first qtr of 2018.

If that happens the quack' s heads will spin and explode
... and here you are bashing Obama for GDP after someone pointed out stock market growth under Obama...
Obama had twice the stock market gain in his first year

And he was just a community organizer from Kenya

How was his GDP?

Say g'night
If you had more than two sides to your mouth, you'd be talking out of them too.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,301
Reaction score
11,887
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
So let me get this straight Faun.....
Under OBAMA......GDP was better due to......

1). Sending Billions to Iran (oh, yeah....we can all see how that helped)
2). Trillions upon trillions spent on pseudo "Green" projects which never materialized or failed (IOW...money under the table to supporters)
3). Jobs exodus to China
4). 1000's of new regulations strangling business (oh right! Killing private business and consolidating all means of production into the hands of super efficient government bureaucrats ALWAYS results in a better economy)
5). Making America energy dependent on foreign oil....and strangling American Oil production (remember that little pipeline fiasco?)

Yep...doesn't take a rocket scientist to clearly see how Obama's economy was superior (in destroying America)

giphy.gif
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
38,826
Reaction score
27,266
Points
2,935
It has reached 4.1% and will eventually go back up. No biggie.

Hell, Obama’s average GDP growth was under 2%. He never even had a full year of 3% growth.

4.1%, gosh sounds impressive. Almost as impressive as Obama's 5.5%. Trump hasn't even had a full year of 3% growth either. Missed it last year. Better luck next year because he sure as hell ain't going to do it this year.

Obama's 5.5? Lol uhm no
Oh.View attachment 290506

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.

Statistical tricks were constantly used, like the “low” unemployment rate during Obozo’s term.

That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.

U.S. GDP Grew 3.5% In The Third Quarter 2014

The Obama economy in 10 charts
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Wage Growth Tracker - Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,551
Reaction score
17,899
Points
2,210
4.1%, gosh sounds impressive. Almost as impressive as Obama's 5.5%. Trump hasn't even had a full year of 3% growth either. Missed it last year. Better luck next year because he sure as hell ain't going to do it this year.

Obama's 5.5? Lol uhm no
Oh.View attachment 290506

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.

Statistical tricks were constantly used, like the “low” unemployment rate during Obozo’s term.

That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.

U.S. GDP Grew 3.5% In The Third Quarter 2014

The Obama economy in 10 charts
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528
Wow! Wages PLUMMETED under Barry Hussein. Thanks for the graph.

What a disaster that clown was.
Yeah, thanks to Bush's Great Recession he handed Obama. Some 8 million jobs lost in U3 unemployment, 12 million lost in U6 unemployment. Great times, huh?
icon_rolleyes.gif
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,631
Reaction score
10,738
Points
465
4.1%, gosh sounds impressive. Almost as impressive as Obama's 5.5%. Trump hasn't even had a full year of 3% growth either. Missed it last year. Better luck next year because he sure as hell ain't going to do it this year.

Obama's 5.5? Lol uhm no
Oh.View attachment 290506

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.


That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.
 

BasicHumanUnit

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
17,301
Reaction score
11,887
Points
1,255
Location
Everywhere needed
Yeah, thanks to Bush's Great Recession he handed Obama. Some 8 million jobs lost in U3 unemployment, 12 million lost in U6 unemployment. Great times, huh?
icon_rolleyes.gif

Bush was a Republican like Peewee Herman is a Navy Seal
Bush was / is a Globalist./ elitist
So glad you totally agree that Globalists and their agendas are fucked up.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,551
Reaction score
17,899
Points
2,210
So let me get this straight Faun.....
Under OBAMA......GDP was better due to......

1). Sending Billions to Iran (oh, yeah....we can all see how that helped)
2). Trillions upon trillions spent on pseudo "Green" projects which never materialized or failed (IOW...money under the table to supporters)
3). Jobs exodus to China
4). 1000's of new regulations strangling business (oh right! Killing private business and consolidating all means of production into the hands of super efficient government bureaucrats ALWAYS results in a better economy)
5). Making America energy dependent on foreign oil....and strangling American Oil production (remember that little pipeline fiasco?)

Yep...doesn't take a rocket scientist to clearly see how Obama's economy was superior (in destroying America)

giphy.gif

Faun: Start from when the Recession ended in June, 2009 and annualized real GDP growth under Obama was 2.4% while it's been 2.6% under Trump.

BasicHumanUnit: Under OBAMA......GDP was better due to......

Emphasis added to make fun of an imbecile. :lol:
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
38,826
Reaction score
27,266
Points
2,935

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.


That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.


....and in spite of all that, you still can't prove how Trump's economy is going horribly wrong.

:21::auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::lmao::lol:
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,551
Reaction score
17,899
Points
2,210
Yeah, thanks to Bush's Great Recession he handed Obama. Some 8 million jobs lost in U3 unemployment, 12 million lost in U6 unemployment. Great times, huh?
icon_rolleyes.gif

Bush was a Republican like Peewee Herman is a Navy Seal
Bush was / is a Globalist./ elitist
So glad you totally agree that Globalists and their agendas are fucked up.
LOLOLOL

I look forward to the day when you numbnuts start insisting Trump is also not a Republican. You know it's coming.

rotfl-gif.288736
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,631
Reaction score
10,738
Points
465

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.


That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.


....and in spite of all that, you still can't prove how Trump's economy is going horribly wrong.

:21::auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::lmao::lol:

It’s not going horribly wrong. It’s fine. It’s not booming. It’s just kinda creeping along at the same rate that 3 years ago Trump was telling people was a total disaster and the worst thing in the world.
 

Faun

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2011
Messages
81,551
Reaction score
17,899
Points
2,210

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.


That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.


....and in spite of all that, you still can't prove how Trump's economy is going horribly wrong.

:21::auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::lmao::lol:
No one said the economy is going horribly wrong. You only think someone said that because you're a brain-dead cultist who has to make up arguments to fight because you can't argue against what posters are actually saying.

What was said is not that the economy is going "horribly wrong," but that Trump has so far failed miserably to deliver on some of his campaign promises, such as annual GDP as high as 4%-6% (where his high is 2.9%, matching Obama's best year), and eliminating the national debt (which is actually up $3 trillion).
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
38,826
Reaction score
27,266
Points
2,935
The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.


That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.


....and in spite of all that, you still can't prove how Trump's economy is going horribly wrong.

:21::auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::lmao::lol:

It’s not going horribly wrong. It’s fine. It’s not booming. It’s just kinda creeping along at the same rate that 3 years ago Trump was telling people was a total disaster and the worst thing in the world.

How so? 3 years ago we weren't a net exporter of oil and gas, were we? Is that another reason Trump is "riding on Obama's coattails"?

How about the record-low unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and women? Obama didn't build that. Someone else made that happen.
 
OP
Nostra

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
27,654
Reaction score
23,123
Points
2,415

The 5.1% number was right before the 2014 midterms, if you remember. Statistical tricks were often used, just like his “low” unemployment rates, the the 5.1% number was an upwardly-revised number. It was revised downward to 3.6% the next quarter. Nobody mentions that fact.

Statistical tricks were constantly used, like the “low” unemployment rate during Obozo’s term.

That quarter in 2014 was also the top of the oil fracking boom, which was adding half a trillion dollars to the US economy at the time, despite the Obama administration's best efforts to kill it.

Then there was also the defense spending for 2nd Quarter of 2014, which pushed the GDP to 4.6%, then fell back to 3.5% for the third Quarter.

Even CNN Money said that there was an average of 2.4% for 2014.

U.S. GDP Grew 3.5% In The Third Quarter 2014

The Obama economy in 10 charts
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528
Wow! Wages PLUMMETED under Barry Hussein. Thanks for the graph.

What a disaster that clown was.
Yeah, thanks to Bush's Great Recession he handed Obama. Some 8 million jobs lost in U3 unemployment, 12 million lost in U6 unemployment. Great times, huh?
icon_rolleyes.gif
The recession officially ended in June 2009. Barry Hussein handed off negative numbers in Jan 2017.

Oops!
 

colfax_m

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
29,631
Reaction score
10,738
Points
465
Oh, statistical tricks....

So basically, if data cuts against your worship for Trump -- its statistical tricks?

got it...here is some more trickery then....

View attachment 290528

As usual, you're only showing part of the data. Obama's highest wage growth was in November, 2016. That was business and industry's anticipation of Trump being elected. The majority of Obama's presidency showed very weak wage growth. Just look how far it dropped withing the first two years of the Obama presidency...

Any way you look at it, Obama's economy was a failure.

Wage growth was >3% throughout all of 2016, there was no spike in November 2016 as a result of the election, nor would anyone with any business experience expect employers to suddenly give people raises solely as a result of the election.

The larger overall trend is that wages fell during the recession (obviously) and slowly started increasing over the course of the recovery from the recession as the labor market tightened and unemployment fell. If you look at wage growth from 2016 and 2017-2018, it's hardly different and any actual increase is a part of the ongoing tightening of the labor market which is a process that had been going on for years.


....and in spite of all that, you still can't prove how Trump's economy is going horribly wrong.

:21::auiqs.jpg::laughing0301::lmao::lol:

It’s not going horribly wrong. It’s fine. It’s not booming. It’s just kinda creeping along at the same rate that 3 years ago Trump was telling people was a total disaster and the worst thing in the world.

How so? 3 years ago we weren't a net exporter of oil and gas, were we? Is that another reason Trump is "riding on Obama's coattails"?

How about the record-low unemployment for blacks, Hispanics, and women? Obama didn't build that. Someone else made that happen.

We didn’t become a net oil/gas exporter overnight. Net imports have been falling for a decade. It just now crossed the zero line. Unemployment has been falling for all ethnic groups.

You’re just pointing at the results of trends which have been going on ever since the recession hit. Why should I give Trump any extra credit over Obama just because the trend continued?
 

kwc57

BOHICA Obama
Joined
Jul 13, 2009
Messages
13,925
Reaction score
2,649
Points
255
Location
Oklahoma City, OK
And also greatly improving the chances America throws the Dimwingers out of control in the House.

This pencil necked bug-eyed moron is taking the entire party down with his impeachment debacle.

:5_1_12024::5_1_12024::5_1_12024:


Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next

Adam Schiff has made a complete hash of the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry. The decision by the California Democrat and House Intelligence Committee chairman to conduct the first series of interviews behind closed doors allowed Republicans to appropriately brand the enterprise as unfair and clandestine.

His next step, orchestrating a steady stream of leaks and disclosures timed and edited for maximum impact, all but guaranteed that last week’s subsequent live hearings would be anti-climactic.

Schiff stole his own thunder.


In addition, he has not been straightforward about his dealings with the whistleblower, who initially was pivotal to charges against the president but who is now deemed inconsequential by Schiff.

It is common knowledge that the initial complaint was launched by a Democrat with ties to President Trump’s adversaries. That revelation has sucked even more legitimacy from the investigation.

As a result of these several missteps, the public is wary of what has emerged as an obviously partisan attack on a duly elected president. Worse, they are also, already, bored and, we’re not even in the home stretch.

If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Adding to the public’s ennui is that the resolution of the impeachment is a foregone conclusion. It’s like Agatha Christie revealing whodunit in Chapter One; it steals the story’s punch.

We know Democrats will press forward with their tiresome questioning and posturing, hoping to convince the nation that the hearings are something bigger and nobler than a political stunt. They will vote to impeach; that has always been a foregone conclusion.

The carnival will then move to the Senate, which will ultimately hold a trial and find the president not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Democrats know this; they know there is no real purpose to their impeachment thrust but to undermine Mr. Trump before the 2020 campaign.

It's a risky way to win an election. If Americans turn against the impeachment effort, they will punish Democrats for not attending to other, more important, priorities. Let’s face it, impeaching the president will not make our roads better or lower drug costs.

Also, a partisan investigation will energize Trump supporters and drive turnout among Republicans.

Even the Trump-hating New York Times struggled to find much meaning in the impeachment proceedings. In their coverage of the first day of hearings, reporter Peter Baker was reduced to glorifying star witness and diplomat William Taylor’s appearance: “the image, at least, of a wise, fatherly figure” with a “chiseled face and reassuring gray hair” whose “deep baritone voice [was] reminiscent of Walter Cronkite.” Channeling Gregory Peck apparently enhances Taylor’s credibility.

The liberal media did hyperventilate over Taylor’s “new” revelation that someone on his staff “asked Ambassador Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine.” Sondland, according to the aide, according to Taylor, said the president “cares more about the investigations of Bidens.” In other words, third-hand hearsay.

Disappointing to Democrats, Taylor refused to climb aboard the impeachment train. Moreover, that Taylor had never once met with or talked to President Trump undermined the impact of his testimony, notwithstanding his admirable elocution.

To be sure, it is clear that Taylor disapproved of President Trump’s reportedly tying $391 million in aid to Kiev to an investigation into possible misdeeds by Joe Biden and his son Hunter. He said that holding up that assistance for political purposes is wrong. It is unclear what Taylor thought of President Obama’s steadfast refusal to authorize that much-needed help during his administration.

Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who was sent back to the United States because the White House heard she was openly critical of the president, was not even in the Ukraine when the events under review took place. The president is entitled to have representatives in foreign countries who are on his team. End of story.

Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.

As the inquiry drags on, more Americans will tune out. The TV audience on the first day of the Schiff show was far less than the number who watched the confirmation hearings for now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh or even Michael Cohen’s testimony.

Schiff himself was tweeting his followers to watch in an embarrassing effort to gin up enthusiasm. The audience will shrink further.

Democratic candidates slugging it out in Iowa and New Hampshire are rarely asked about impeachment. Instead, voters ask about health care and other issues; campaigners are struggling to explain how they are rewarding voters for giving their party the majority in the House.

Some of those candidates will soon view the impeachment drive as an even bigger threat. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Michael Bennet and Cory Booker – all 2020 candidates – will have to participate in the eventual Senate trial. That means they will have to sit in the Senate day after day, while rivals like Joe Biden and Mayor Pete Buttigieg run circles around them on the campaign trail.


It is almost inconceivable that Democrats have allowed Adam Schiff to play ringmaster for this circus. As a major author of the Russia collusion narrative, Schiff was already reviled on the right.

As he leads his own party down the impeachment rabbit hole, Schiff may come under fire from Democrats as well, and especially from those senators trying to win the primaries.


And let’s not forget the damage Schiff has done to front-runner Joe Biden. After all, the one critical part of the Ukraine story that is regurgitated with each telling is that Biden’s son Hunter monetized his father’s unique status not only in Kiev but also in China. That has soiled the former vice president’s candidacy.

The hearings are not over but it is hard to see today how impeachment will prove a winner for Democrats. Nancy Pelosi should have stuck to her guns, and never let this process move forward, and especially with Adam Schiff at the helm.

Liz Peek: Schiff steers Trump impeachment drive straight toward a ditch – Here's what's next
Taylor, Yovanovitch and other witnesses, including the still missing-in-action whistleblower, have no first-hand evidence that Trump threatened to withhold aid in exchange for an investigation into the Bidens. That is still a critical missing link.
We know the aid was withheld. We know that the President continued to push for a public statement of investigation by Zelensky and that aid and the WH visit were contingent on that, according to Sondland.
What part of that is missing in your eyes?
You do realize that if someone assaults you but does not announce "This is an assault" that it is still an assault, right? It is sitting right there before your very eyes. There is no "imagination" at work here. Trump knew what Zelensky wanted. He dangled it in front of his nose and told him the favor(s) he wanted first.
End of Story.
Trump needs to be fired.


You need something besides lefty talking point lies. Try getting some facts, then come back.
They've already been given to you. You throw them on the ground. That is your problem, not mine.
Your Clown "witnesses" didn't witness anything. The two the first day told us about their feelings and impressions of what they were told.

The ambassador had nothing but telling us how butthurt she was for being reassigned.

Ya got nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.
Tell me what it would take for you to say they've got evidence. What would someone have had to witness in order for you to accept this?
Something more than second hand hearsay from an anonymous source still unnamed and unquestioned or witnesses who have never met the President or talked to him and were not privy to the call. I received word from a source who heard from a friend who heard from a friend who heard from a friend that you beat dogs with a stick. I propose an "investigation" where you and any of your friends can't defend you and I'll call all second hand witnesses who heard bad things about you in an effort to have you jailed. Based on your logic, that is totally fair.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top