-
Practice your interview with the new SDN AI Interview Coach. Choose a school, answer by voice or typing, and receive a personalized feedback report. Available now to all SDN members. Try the AI Interview Coach.
Will Trump win again???
Started by Planktonmd
- Status
It's 2016 all over again with these polls.
What would you say if some stranger called your landline and asked if you were voting for Trump.
It’s still too early for the polls to mean much of anything. There are a certain subset of voter that vote R or D irregardless, but w/o a clear opponent, there’s no way to accurately predict the independents. There’s a big difference between Biden and a socialist. There’s a big difference between the softball questioning done during these primary debates and what Trump is going to throw at Biden, assuming he’s the nominee, which I think will be the case. Biden looks terrible at baseline and even worse when flustered. Buttigieg, Yang, and Gabbard are much better candidates from an independent perspective, but I think they’re running for VP at best.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I don't answer calls from strangers.
Neither does anyone I know.
It just makes me wonder how any polling is possible at all. Who are the people actually answering their phones and talking to pollsters?
electropartyogram
Full Member
Survey Bias
Describes two sources of bias in survey sampling: unrepresentative samples and measurement error. Compares survey bias to sampling error. Includes video lesson.
Looks like polls in the UK that predicted a close race...or at least the headlines spin on the polls suggested a close election but doesn’t seem like it was close at all.
D
deleted171991
Trump just went on the biggest tweet storm of his presidency
The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
theweek.com
But, hey, he's the one running the country... Yep, like a 3 year-old. 😆
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump just went on the biggest tweet storm of his presidency
The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
But, hey, he's the one running the country... Yep, like a 3 year-old. 😆
Hilarious.....until you realize the President of the United States of America somehow had time for 120+ tweets and retweets in a single day.
I'm not typically a fan of shifting either credit or blame from a current president to another one. If you are in office, you should take responsibility for the wins and losses. But at what point does one question the logic in regard to wins when you can tweet 120 times a day, not hold any official daily WH press conferences, and go on 228 golf trips financially benefiting your own resorts at a cost to the US taxpayer of $114 million?
Last edited:
D
deleted171991
The latter is what's truly impeachable. Ukraine is just the frosting on the cake of corruption.
Trump just went on the biggest tweet storm of his presidency
The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week
But, hey, he's the one running the country... Yep, like a 3 year-old. 😆
Then you would agree that Obama should have been impeached and removed from office for using the IRS to target conservative groups, or for Operation Fast and Furious, or for DECEPTIVELY MISCHARACTERIZING A TERRORIST ATTACK ON SEPTEMBER 11TH AS A PROTEST SO THAT IT WOULDN'T AFFECT HIS REELECTION.
The UK election result is relevant to my interests.
Three days ago this is how the polls were settling out:
yougov.co.uk
And what actually happened:
So the Tories outperformed the latest polls by about 25 seats, and Labour underperformed by about 30 seats.
BBC is calling it astonishing, remarkable, unexpected.
I don't have a feel for whether or not British voters are likely to publicly hide their support for Boris Johnson, the way many Americans won't publicly admit support for Trump. But it seems plausible.
538 published this today:
fivethirtyeight.com
Headline says it all. Eleven months to go, Trump hasn't even had a chance to start focusing attacks on one Democrat opponent, we have another data point showing a conservative/nationalist party substantially outperforming polls in a highly contentious election, economy is still moving along, President Trump is surely going to OK some kind of trade deal with China in the next few months, the impeachment hearings were a mess, Republicans are going to control the flow and content of the Senate trial ...
Re-election seems more and more likely. Granted - 11 months to go.
Three days ago this is how the polls were settling out:
The key findings from our final MRP poll | YouGov
After much anticipation, YouGov’s second and final MRP poll of the 2019 general election is here. The model which correctly called 93% of seats in 2017 currently shows that a small Conservative majority is likely. This is the final public polling YouGov will conduct before Thursday’s vote
yougov.co.uk
And what actually happened:
So the Tories outperformed the latest polls by about 25 seats, and Labour underperformed by about 30 seats.
BBC is calling it astonishing, remarkable, unexpected.
I don't have a feel for whether or not British voters are likely to publicly hide their support for Boris Johnson, the way many Americans won't publicly admit support for Trump. But it seems plausible.
538 published this today:
Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News
ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
Headline says it all. Eleven months to go, Trump hasn't even had a chance to start focusing attacks on one Democrat opponent, we have another data point showing a conservative/nationalist party substantially outperforming polls in a highly contentious election, economy is still moving along, President Trump is surely going to OK some kind of trade deal with China in the next few months, the impeachment hearings were a mess, Republicans are going to control the flow and content of the Senate trial ...
Re-election seems more and more likely. Granted - 11 months to go.
I actually think a lot of polling is misinformation. I saw the same thing when we were in Australia in late April. There was supposed to be a big liberal win for President and the conservatives candidate ended up winning.The UK election result is relevant to my interests.
Three days ago this is how the polls were settling out:
The key findings from our final MRP poll | YouGov
After much anticipation, YouGov’s second and final MRP poll of the 2019 general election is here. The model which correctly called 93% of seats in 2017 currently shows that a small Conservative majority is likely. This is the final public polling YouGov will conduct before Thursday’s vote
And what actually happened:
So the Tories outperformed the latest polls by about 25 seats, and Labour underperformed by about 30 seats.
BBC is calling it astonishing, remarkable, unexpected.
I don't have a feel for whether or not British voters are likely to publicly hide their support for Boris Johnson, the way many Americans won't publicly admit support for Trump. But it seems plausible.
538 published this today:
Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News
ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
Headline says it all. Eleven months to go, Trump hasn't even had a chance to start focusing attacks on one Democrat opponent, we have another data point showing a conservative/nationalist party substantially outperforming polls in a highly contentious election, economy is still moving along, President Trump is surely going to OK some kind of trade deal with China in the next few months, the impeachment hearings were a mess, Republicans are going to control the flow and content of the Senate trial ...
Re-election seems more and more likely. Granted - 11 months to go.
I think the misinformation is from poor data, as evidenced by people who support Trump are often unwilling to admit it, and people creating polls who want to advance an agenda. The only real poll that matters is the one this upcoming November. We all remember 2016. I remember the London bookies predicted a Clinton victory and they had never been wrong in a presidential election.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The sense I'm getting is people are scared about Democrats coming into power because of what it would mean for the 2nd amendment, 1st amendment, supreme court, taxes, the economy, etc.
Things are going really well right now. Nobody wants to upset the balance and get more of the garbage economics from Obama's 8 years. Sorry Biden, you're too old for this, you're too senile to govern effectively, and you would be just a stand in for whatever radical staff that your other staff will hire.
electropartyogram
Full Member
I would say things are going relatively well, there are still some major things that need work, but otherwise, I agree. The Democrats nosedive to the left is not the proper way to go. They want to upheave too many things where it is not even a reality anymore. Not saying the Republicans are better, they both suck in a different way. Too bad there is no way to really compromise on things anymore. That is the real tragedy here.
The UK election result is relevant to my interests.
Three days ago this is how the polls were settling out:
The key findings from our final MRP poll | YouGov
After much anticipation, YouGov’s second and final MRP poll of the 2019 general election is here. The model which correctly called 93% of seats in 2017 currently shows that a small Conservative majority is likely. This is the final public polling YouGov will conduct before Thursday’s vote
And what actually happened:
So the Tories outperformed the latest polls by about 25 seats, and Labour underperformed by about 30 seats.
BBC is calling it astonishing, remarkable, unexpected.
I don't have a feel for whether or not British voters are likely to publicly hide their support for Boris Johnson, the way many Americans won't publicly admit support for Trump. But it seems plausible.
538 published this today:
Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News
ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
Headline says it all. Eleven months to go, Trump hasn't even had a chance to start focusing attacks on one Democrat opponent, we have another data point showing a conservative/nationalist party substantially outperforming polls in a highly contentious election, economy is still moving along, President Trump is surely going to OK some kind of trade deal with China in the next few months, the impeachment hearings were a mess, Republicans are going to control the flow and content of the Senate trial ...
Re-election seems more and more likely. Granted - 11 months to go.
Phase One Deal implies phases 2 through N are coming, perhaps in well-timed aliquots every 2-3 months from now until the election to keep the marketeers happy? Also, the New-NAFTA-aka-USMCA-Which-Is-Totally-Completely-Different-From-Old-NAFTA deal looks set for Senate ratification in 2020.
Tsk, tsk. You used the word conspirators without a trigger warning. Get ready for incoming, in 5, 4, 3, 2......😉
D
deleted171991
Britain's Labour Party Got Woke — Now It's Broke | Toby Young
Another, related phenomenon that’s been overlooked is that these “topsy turvey” politics are hardly unique to Britain. Left-of-center parties in most parts of the Anglosphere, as well as other Western democracies, have seen the equivalent of their own ‘Red Walls’ collapsing.
quillette.com
I foresee a similar scenario in the US.
The UK election result is relevant to my interests.
Three days ago this is how the polls were settling out:
The key findings from our final MRP poll | YouGov
After much anticipation, YouGov’s second and final MRP poll of the 2019 general election is here. The model which correctly called 93% of seats in 2017 currently shows that a small Conservative majority is likely. This is the final public polling YouGov will conduct before Thursday’s vote
And what actually happened:
So the Tories outperformed the latest polls by about 25 seats, and Labour underperformed by about 30 seats.
BBC is calling it astonishing, remarkable, unexpected.
I don't have a feel for whether or not British voters are likely to publicly hide their support for Boris Johnson, the way many Americans won't publicly admit support for Trump. But it seems plausible.
538 published this today:
Politics News | Breaking Political News, Video & Analysis-ABC News
ABC News is your trusted source on political news stories and videos. Get the latest coverage and analysis on everything from the Trump presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court.
Headline says it all. Eleven months to go, Trump hasn't even had a chance to start focusing attacks on one Democrat opponent, we have another data point showing a conservative/nationalist party substantially outperforming polls in a highly contentious election, economy is still moving along, President Trump is surely going to OK some kind of trade deal with China in the next few months, the impeachment hearings were a mess, Republicans are going to control the flow and content of the Senate trial ...
Re-election seems more and more likely. Granted - 11 months to go.
That's why it'd be great if Trump wins reelection and then strikes a trade deal with Britain!
D
deleted171991
Sham trial in the good Sovietic and Chinese tradition:
The Founders must be turning in their graves.
The Founders must be turning in their graves.
Britain's Labour Party Got Woke — Now It's Broke | Toby Young
Another, related phenomenon that’s been overlooked is that these “topsy turvey” politics are hardly unique to Britain. Left-of-center parties in most parts of the Anglosphere, as well as other Western democracies, have seen the equivalent of their own ‘Red Walls’ collapsing.
I foresee a similar scenario in the US.
I forsee tweets like these if Trump wins again:
That last bit, from a Brit complaining about the election, advising his enemy to "find an island and **** off" is just priceless.
Last edited:
The difference is that Johnson is an Oxford educated lean-libertarian who has a liberal history when it comes to social issues and immigration. England is a single-payer country where the unofficial national dish is chicken tikka masala for chrissakes. I don't think I'd disagree with characterizing the British left as overreacting.
OTOH, here in the US we didnt get a Johnson. We got an even stupider version of Nigel Farage and bonafide neonazi as his immigration policy director.
Last edited:
D
deleted171991
One can't compare Johnson and Trump beyond the similar looks. Johnson is a highly-educated man who's famous for retreating to a corner with a book in hand. Before Oxford, he went to Eton, and at Oxford he majored in Classics. Despite his character flaws, I would vote for Johnson tomorrow.
One should wonder if Trump is to Johnson as the average American is to the average Brit. Most of their prime-ministers seem to be better quality people than most of our presidents. Food for thought.
Last edited by a moderator:
On average I think Europe just doesn't have the same level of faux-populism outrage when it comes to educated "elites" being in leadership roles. The campaign messaging around W. and the selection of Palin reinforced this whole stupid notion that the president/VP had to be some folksy dimwit you could have a beer with.
But before that, I don't know how much "better" I'd really classify UK PMs vs Presidents. Carter graduated from the US Naval Academy. Reagan didn't have an elite education but he was sharp and he surrounded himself with qualified people. H.W. went to Phillips academy and Yale. Slick Willy was a Rhodes scholar, Georgetown, Oxford, Yale Law. Dubya was obviously a legacy pick but still Yale and Harvard MBA. Obama went to Columbia and Harvard Law. Trump is really the first one we've seen where even though he went to (undergrad) Wharton, one can tell from his disorganized policy, unqualified staff selection, nepotism, record staff turnover, and overall lack of education/knowledge about the issues that he's supremely unqualified (see:
Trump wants his daily intelligence briefings short and full of 'killer graphics' ) compared to prior US presidents or UK PMs.
Obama was an unqualified president. He was young, inexperienced, and had slogans that didn't translate to effective legislation or military leadership. His presidency was run by idiots that thought it was a good day to get the USA into Libya and Syria, but out of Iraq, Asia, Ukraine, and Iran.
Obama allowed Russia to interfere in American elections.
Obama brought us the beauty of Obamacare that is pushing us all toward socialized medicine.
Obama decided it was a good idea to spy on a rival's presidential campaign.
Obama thought it was a good idea to use the IRS as a political campaign tool to suppress his opposition.
Obama thought it was a good idea to give guns to Mexican cartels to be used to murder American citizens and innocent Mexicans.
Obama thought it was a good idea to have an immigration policy that involved caging children and not fixing the policy before he left office.
Obama thought it was a good idea to get us out of a recession by crippling small businesses with onerous regulations.
Obama's presidency was one of the worst in the history of the United States.
Trump has been successful in:
Strengthening NATO by requiring members to live up to their funding obligations
Facilitating and presiding over the strongest economy in US history
Confronting China and Russia and Iran and North Korea simultaneously
Rebuilding the US military
Actually trying to reform the immigration system and securing the border.
Trump is just a better president than Obama despite only graduating from Wharton, and affirmative action diplomas didn't make Obama a smart guy. Was W magically smarter because he had legacy diplomas?
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This (above vitriol) has been happening in the US since 2016. The Media/Entertainment/Progressive Complex has been in full attack mode. IMO, no sane person could argue otherwise. They've been attacking Trump and his supporters with every slur possible.
I ask everybody this: Why in a country where citizens are free to vote for their favored candidate in a free election, are Trump supporters physically and verbally attacked for simply wearing a hat or t-shirt showing support for our President? If this doesn't bother you, I suggest you take a long, deep look into the mirror.
This is an interesting sentence. I'll leave it at that.
Seems like an "elite education" is a shiny object for many people. Show you a "better" piece of paper, and you will fall for it every time. Don't you see how you can be easily manipulated if you simply use that formula to pick your leaders? We don't live in a caste system, and people should be judged on what they personally work for and personally accomplish in their lives, not by the group setting in which they took English 101. It is an element of someone's pedigree that can easily be bought or set up for future gain (of the one who does the setting up). In other words, gifting someone an elite diploma is one of the easiest ways to buy someone's loyalty and future influence. Why else do you think Obama got into Columbia? And do a short internet search to see who paid for Obama's tuition at HLS. It is textbook manipulation of the elite system in order to set up a future politician. And Obama surely isn't the only one. Honorary Rhodes Scholar to BC, etc, etc, etc. Yes, there are many, many brilliant people who legitimately go to Ivy League/Elite schools. THEY are the cover story/storyline of brilliant success for all of the others who are placed there to get their papers before moving up in the world of politics/power positions. It is truly time for some of you to wake up and smell the coffee.
First, look at academic pedigree of our elected officials and their kids. Do you really think that it represents a meritocracy when when people like Chelsea Clinton, Hunter Biden, Jessica Schumer, Kristen Gore, Al Gore III, Karenna Gore, etc. all went to our “elite” academic institutions? I mean, what are the odds that Al Gore would not have one, but THREE kids get into Harvard? Clearly, Al must have some magic sperm.
With that as a backdrop, try to imagine how the average American feels when the so called wizards of smart are telling them back in 2015 that the economic stagnation under Obama was a new normal, that they would just have to accept a false unemployment rate with millions sitting on the sidelines. Americans then had to listen to guys like Paul Krugman, who has all the right degrees and a Nobel Prize in economics, tell them that the world would end if Donald Trump got elected.
Now, fast forward 3 years under Trump and the NYT just last week was having to admit that all of these liberal, educated experts vastly underestimated the productive power of the US economy under Trump. This week, we get to listen to the DOJ IG tells us that the highly educated experts (people like Adam Schiff, James Comey, John Brennan, Sally Yates, etc.) that gave us 3 years of Russian collusion were full of horse****. And, most importantly, working American’s sons and daughters now have the lowest likelihood in 20 years of dying or being seriously injured in some bull**** foreign war that was started and ineffectively prosecuted by people with elite degrees.
Hmmm, yeah. I can see exactly how the “average American” doesn’t give 2 ****s about the academic pedigree of the person leading the country. In fact, I can’t really doubt them for thinking that a degree from Harvard is a better indication of being mentally handicapped when people like Warren start opening their mouths.
Last edited:
The problem of meritocracy vs legacy is real but it extends to all rich and/or famous people, so nice job conveniently naming a bunch of dems' kids. Where did the Barbara Pierce Bush and the McCain/Romney/Trump kids go to school again?
It's pretty easy to monday morning QB the post-2009 economic recovery as if a recovery was something that had to happen in the first place . The 2008 recession was the worst period in US economic history since the great depression. The great depression lasted 10 freaking years and was really only alleviated when economic output from WWII picked up. Under Obama otoh, the market bottomed in March of 2009 and went essentially straight up and continued to go straight up after Trump took over even though it took him til almost 2018 to pass the tax cut for corporations and rich people. You can nitpick all day long about "tepid" this and "anemic" that, but it's pure retrospective bias.
I love your spin on Trump and Russia, but anyone with half a brain can see that there was a there, there. It's honestly too bad that Mueller brought a knife to a gunfight and thought that his saying that he explicitly doesn't exonerate Trump would make it obvious to everyone else that Trump obstructed justice but simply couldn't be indicted due to DOJ rules. Barr (Roy Cohn #2) pre-spinning the release was deadly though. However, to quote myself
------------
"
It's unfortunate you're so deep into Trumpism that you're unable to see that if you were to step back and approach this whole thing from the 30,000 ft view, you'd realize that absolutely Trump and his cronies did (and do) stink to high heaven of some strange Russian involvement, and there was plenty probable cause for a counterintelligence operation at the time.
Page is a Putin sympathizer. Flynn was paid $45,000 by a Russian TV station. Kusher was denied security clearance because he didn't disclose business ties with a Russian bank. Tillerson brokered Exxon's deal with Rosneft and was awarded the Russian Order of Friendship. Manafort is a convicted felon who accepted 20 million in dirty money from soviet bloc oligarchs. Same goes for Gates. Stone chatted back and forth with Guccifer 2.0 (aka the GRU). Trump just met with with Lavrov (the same guy who he revealed classified intel to) again yesterday, the first time anyone has met with a Russian foreign minister twice. He met Putin without an interpreter or staff in Finland. At the same summit, he said he believes Putin when Putin tells him Russia didn't interfere in 2016. He hid in the oval office when he was forced essentially against his will to sign sanctions against Russia. And he's been trying to build Trump Tower Moscow for 30 years.
One of my favorites though is his dumb@ss son:
On June 9, 2016, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had a meeting with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya after being promised information about Hillary Clinton. Trump Jr. told The New York Times the meeting was about the Magnitsky Act.[132] However, in emails proposing the meeting, publicist Rob Goldstone did not mention the Magnitsky Act and instead promised "documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump", to which Donald Trump Jr. responded, "if it's what you say I love it."[133][134] "
----------
As for us having a lower likelihood of dying in foreign wars, we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Trump wants to destroy NATO, Trump is friends with dictators all over the world, McMaster, Mattis, and Kelly think he's an unqualified f*cking joke, and he just sent 3000 troops to KSA.
Great, you're one of the people leading the charge to turn the film Idiocracy into a documentary.
You do realize that Trump senior bought his way into Wharton as records reflect large donations shortly thereafter -
Again, I voted for the pothead, not Trump in 2016. I saw Trump as a bull**** artist from the moment that he promised every American healthcare on 60 Minutes back in 2015. I’m just hear to explain to you why the “average Americans” that everybody is worried about don’t care at all about the degrees that you care about, and to point out that all of these brilliant thinkers got it all wrong. Some of us managed to see through in silly fairy tells like Adam and Eve, socialism works, and Trump-Russia collusion without having a degree from Harvard.
As for 2020, I’m undecided at this point as I completely disagree with the handling of our debt but I doubt that the libertarians can nominate someone who doesn’t live in their parent’s basement.
Oh, and that whole line about 2008 being the worst recession since the Great Depression - none of us who remember Jimmy Carter believe that.
Also, that crap about Carter Page being a Russian sympathezer is complete horse****. Read the IG report. Carter page was actually a CIA asset working against the Russians. A FBI lawyer falsified the FISA warrant on Page to make his CIA work look nefarious and then leaked it to the media that way to further the false narrative. Then, people like you unknowingly repeat the lie. They literally lied and outed one of our former CIA assets and put him at great risk.
The lawyer who did that has been referred for criminal prosecution and will likely be wearing orange very soon...
The lawyer who did that has been referred for criminal prosecution and will likely be wearing orange very soon...
The thing is, what exactly are we supposed to do with your pointing out that "brilliant thinkers" got it wrong (in the Trumpists' opinion)? I mean, we can all agree that in no way shape or form does that suggest the counterfactual that we should just put a bunch of average people or *****s in charge, right? Yea, sure, why worry about high academic achievement, standards, and the rigors of education... do you and your family only get medical care solely from diploma mill NPs and CRNAs?
"
2008–2009
The Great Recession was the worst financial crisis in the United States since the 1929 Depression. It also was the longest-lasting: from December 2007 to June 2009. The subprime mortgage crisis was the trigger. That created a global bank credit crisis in 2007. By 2008, the credit crisis had spread to the general economy through the widespread use of derivatives.
The economy shrank in five quarters, including four quarters in a row. Two quarters contracted more than 5%. In Q4 2008, GDP was -8.4%, worse than any other recession since the Great Depression. The recession ended in Q3 2009, when GDP turned positive, thanks to an economic stimulus package. "
"
History of Recessions in the United States
There have been 19 major recessions in the United States. Learn how GDP, unemployment, and more were affected, how bad they were, and when they ended.
Him being a Russian asset didn't pan out, even though he was heavily recruited by their agents. The Russian sympathizer part though is absolutely true
"
In 1998, Page joined the Eurasia Group, a strategy consulting firm, but left three months later. In 2017, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer recalled on his Twitter feed that Page's strong pro-Russian stance was "not a good fit" for the firm and that Page was its "most wackadoodle" alumnus.[23] Stephen Sestanovich later described Page's foreign-policy views as having "an edgy Putinist resentment" and a sympathy to Russian leader Vladimir Putin's criticisms of the United States.[2] Over time, Page became increasingly critical of United States foreign policy toward Russia, and more supportive of Putin, with a United States official describing Page as "a brazen apologist for anything Moscow did".[4] Page is frequently quoted by Russian state television, where he is presented as a "famous American economist".[3] "
Why oh why sweet lord will no one think of the poor, defenseless, timid Trump supporters????
Last edited:
The thing is, what exactly are we supposed to do with your pointing out that "brilliant thinkers" got it wrong (in the Trumpists' opinion)? I mean, we can all agree that in no way shape or form does that suggest the counterfactual that we should just put a bunch of average people or *****s in charge, right? Yea, sure, why worry about high academic achievement, standards, and the rigors of education... do you and your family only get medical care solely from diploma mill NPs and CRNAs?
"
2008–2009
The Great Recession was the worst financial crisis in the United States since the 1929 Depression. It also was the longest-lasting: from December 2007 to June 2009. The subprime mortgage crisis was the trigger. That created a global bank credit crisis in 2007. By 2008, the credit crisis had spread to the general economy through the widespread use of derivatives.
The economy shrank in five quarters, including four quarters in a row. Two quarters contracted more than 5%. In Q4 2008, GDP was -8.4%, worse than any other recession since the Great Depression. The recession ended in Q3 2009, when GDP turned positive, thanks to an economic stimulus package. "
"
History of Recessions in the United States
There have been 19 major recessions in the United States. Learn how GDP, unemployment, and more were affected, how bad they were, and when they ended.www.thebalance.com
The worst recession?
Is the current recession the worst since the Great Depression? Even though the president, many members of Congress and many journalists keep saying we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, it is an assertion that is premature, to say the least.
m.washingtontimes.com
At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982. As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low. A situation in which the number of jobs available is falling is bad enough, but if inflation is also destroying purchasing power, the misery is compounded. In the 1960s, economist Arthur M. Okun created the Misery Index by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. In the 1976 presidential race, Jimmy Carter frequently attacked President Ford for allowing the Misery Index to reach 13.57, even though it was lower when Mr. Ford left office than what he had inherited from the Nixon years. Ironically, four years later, when President Carter was running against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index reached a record high of 21.98. Mr. Carter had no defense and lost the election. The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century...
The combination of inflation plus unemployment in the Carter years was a far more dire economic situation than 2008.
Last edited:
You are aware that Page’s pro-Russian posture came at a time (2000-2013) when he was serving as an intelligence asset for the CIA, right? You do understand that spies infiltrate organizations and governments by gaining their trust, right?
What's your point showing pictures of a few people wearing pro-Trump shirts? Are you trying to shame other Trump voters because some are less educated than you are? That they're poorer than you are? That they've suffered more in their lives than you have?
Why oh why sweet lord will no one think of the poor, defenseless, timid Trump supporters????
Is this really the game you wanna play? If so, you’ll lose badly. WAY worse on the other side.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The worst recession?
Is the current recession the worst since the Great Depression? Even though the president, many members of Congress and many journalists keep saying we are in the worst recession since the 1930s, it is an assertion that is premature, to say the least.
At the end of World War II, from 1945 to 1946, there was a very sharp drop in U.S. output (12.1 percent) as the war economy began its transition to a civilian economy. The deepest and longest-lasting recession the United States has experienced since then began in 1980, when Jimmy Carter was president (the gross domestic product dropped 9.6 percent in the second quarter of that year) and did not end until fourth-quarter 1982, almost two years into the Reagan presidency. There were positive quarters during this almost three-year period, resulting in what is known as a double-dip recession, but GDP did not return to the 1979 level until well into 2003. Unemployment peaked at 10.6 percent in the fall of 1982. As can be seen in the accompanying chart, both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low. A situation in which the number of jobs available is falling is bad enough, but if inflation is also destroying purchasing power, the misery is compounded. In the 1960s, economist Arthur M. Okun created the Misery Index by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate. In the 1976 presidential race, Jimmy Carter frequently attacked President Ford for allowing the Misery Index to reach 13.57, even though it was lower when Mr. Ford left office than what he had inherited from the Nixon years. Ironically, four years later, when President Carter was running against Ronald Reagan, the Misery Index reached a record high of 21.98. Mr. Carter had no defense and lost the election. The Misery Index dropped by more than 10 points during the Reagan presidency, the single largest improvement during any president’s tenure in the last half-century...
The combination of inflation plus unemployment in the Carter years was a far more dire economic situation than 2008.
Firstly, I can tell you're truly interested in inflation / stagflation and the non-biased causes of recessions cause you keep saying Carter over and over again when, in fact, the conditions leading to Carter (who, to be fair, was no economic wunderkind) taking over were:
---
1973–1975
This recession lasted 16 months, from November 1973 to March 1975. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is blamed for quadrupling oil prices. But the OPEC oil embargo alone didn't cause such a deep recession. Two other factors contributed.
First, President Nixon instituted wage-price controls. This kept prices too high, reducing demand. Wage controls made salaries too high and forced businesses to lay off workers. Second, Nixon took the United States off the gold standard in response to a run on the gold held at Fort Knox, which led to inflation. The price of gold skyrocketed to $120 an ounce while the dollar's value plummeted.
The result was stagflation and five quarters of negative GDP growth: 1973 Q3, -2.1%; 1974 Q1, -3.4%; Q3, -3.7%; Q4, -1.5%; and 1975 Q1, -4.8%. Unemployment reached a peak of 9% in May 1975, two months after the recession had ended.
--------------
Secondly, words have meaning, and the definition of recession is based on negative quarters of nominal GDP growth. If you want to quibble that inflationary recessions are worse in many ways, sure, but 2008-2009 is still the worst since the great depression when looking at a -8.4% GDP contraction.
Last edited:
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You're aware that CIA recruits US citizens overseas who are conspiring with foreign govts and they either have to turn into a CIA asset or face espionage charges? You're aware that it's pure speculation to state any definitive time frame (outside of maybe 08-13) or any responsibilities he had working with the CIA? And honestly, it's speculation to even say it was the CIA since "CIA" is not mentioned in the IG report.
Let me be very clear though, if an FBI attorney intentionally left out material that the "other government agency" was using him as an asset and it was pertinent to the warrant application, he should absolutely be held accountable for it.
Last edited:
He is one person who got caught because the evidence was obvious.
How do you prove conspiracy if you don't have messages since they're encrypted? Easy, threat of criminal prosecution, interviewing with FBI agents, subpoenas, device confiscation.
Why were 17 crimes committed on one FISA application and those crimes persisted for subsequent applications?
Why were all 17 crimes all in favor of continuing the surveillance? Why wasn't there a single mistake that helped Page, if it was just a sloppy document crafted with multiple agents?
Why did the FBI director lie in a television interview that the dossier played only a small part of the FISA application, when the IG report showed that it was the central part?
If you actually read the DOJ IG report you would actually see the exact dates that Carter Page was an active operational contact for the CIA - it was 2008-2013 and clearly stated in the report. He spent another EIGHT YEARS working his way into the Kremlin’s trust. Keep in mind that the only reason you know the guy’s name is because members of the Crossfire Hurricane team decided to fabricate evidence on him for a FISA application and then leak that to the press to further a false narrative.
However, a more direct question for you is - why continue to attack the guy? The DOJ IG has stated that he was not a traitor. What did Page do to you that you’re going to keep perpetuating this lie on the internet? Did he run over your cat or something?
Just thank the guy for his service, move on, and let him rebuild his life for farksake.
D
deleted171991
I was thinking about both education and character. To me, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, GWB were all of debatable character and/or IQ.
Americans have a strong anti-intellectual streak and tend to vote for shrewd or charming arses, no offense. The British prime ministers I remember, back to Maggie, have been pretty intelligent and decent human beings, not just shrewd politicians.
Of course, this is all so subjective.
Last edited by a moderator:
I've read the summary pages. Have you?
As I said, it's pure speculation about whether the agency is in fact the CIA, if so how was he recruited to the CIA (patriotic volunteer vs. flipped because he was committing a crime), and the duration for which he was working for a government agency. You stated earlier flat out he had no real Russia ties and was essentially CIA agent from 2000-2013 which is full of assumptions/speculation and a ridiculous mischaracterization.
I don't give two figs about Carter Page other than his pertinence to the fact that multiple Trump associates have multiple Russian intertwinings (and numerous ones out of this group are in jail), and therefore the IG found that the origins of the Russia investigation had probable cause and were unbiased.
- Status
