Will Trump win again???

[deleted171991]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

That’s great. I tend to associate the brain power of someone with the veracity of what they say and do.

For example, I work with a doc who trained and worked for 20+ years at one of the top medical institutions in the country and is well published. But they say and do some of the dumbest things clinically that you’ll ever see. And it’s a consensus amongst everyone who works with them. No one could care less about their background, but I couldn’t name one person I work with who would let them care for anyone in their family.

If you wanna put your trust in what someone says just cause of where they went to school, feel free. I just think it’s a crappy measure of validity.

I agree that a good brand is no guarantee of anything. (I have worked with Ivy League grads.) But it definitely increases the probability of quality. My mental models are based on probabilities, not certainties.

Just because some sheep are black, it doesn't mean that most sheep are not. Also, white ravens are rare, but I couldn't swear they don't exist.

 

[BoolaHI]

You’re referring to that poll about Trump that I referred to that was the most accurate one in the Trump election yeah? Don’t know why you keep bringing that one up....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because since then (fall 2016) they have proven themselves to be the least accurate polling in the country per the 2018 cycle.

 

[Matty44]

I agree that a good brand is no guarantee of anything. (I have worked with a lot of Ivy League grads.) But it definitely increases the probability of quality. My mental models are based on probabilities, not certainties.

Just because some sheep are black, it doesn't mean that most sheep are not.

So how can that be used as a valid argument for any point of contention? I get having a baseline probability that so and so is probably smarter than so and so based off of X. But it’s pretty weak shiz when someone poses an argument and the response is “oh that’s obviously a bad argument, don’t you know where that guy went to school?!”

It’s fine in generalizations, it’s dumb to use it as evidence of truth or fiction in specific instances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted171991]

So how can that be used as a valid argument for any point of contention? I get having a baseline probability that so and so is probably smarter than so and so based off of X. But it’s pretty weak shiz when someone poses an argument and the response is “oh that’s obviously a bad argument, don’t you know where that guy went to school?!”

It’s fine in generalizations, it’s dumb to use it as evidence of truth or fiction in specific instances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

@BoolaHI is right, it DOES matter for law schools; it IS an indicator of brainpower. Just ask the top law firms in this country.

And I really do tend not to take my advice from a person who didn't even go to college. Hence Beck seems to be out. (Bill Gates is not.)

 

[BoolaHI]

So how can that be used as a valid argument for any point of contention? I get having a baseline probability that so and so is probably smarter than so and so based off of X. But it’s pretty weak shiz when someone poses an argument and the response is “oh that’s obviously a bad argument, don’t you know where that guy went to school?!”

It’s fine in generalizations, it’s dumb to use it as evidence of truth or fiction in specific instances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Baseline probability huh? Consider the first bar pass rate at HLS and YLS is about 96 percent and Capital Law (for first time takers) under 50 percent...which means you even legally practice the law, hows that for a baseline.

 

[BoolaHI]

And I ask in earnest to those docs in hiring or management positions what the difference between a med applicant with a 494 (33 percentile) and that with a 524 (99 percentile) are they even comparable and are there limitations the lower score suffers?

 

[deleted171991]

And I ask in earnest to those docs in hiring or management positions what the difference between a med applicant with a 494 (33 percentile) and that with a 524 (99 percentile) are they even comparable and are there limitations the lower score suffers?

You're talking about MCAT scores I assume. They really don't mean anything once the person is in medical school, as in they are not used much for residency interviews AFAIK.

But they do matter for medical school acceptance, and the medical school brand matters A LOT for the physician's entire career. I am just a foreign medical graduate, but I have seen obvious respect given to one of the brands in my resume (my scores didn't hurt either). I personally don't care much about them, but my employers and my patients clearly do.

Brands do matter for most people, especially if based on life experience. The reason an educational brand is recognized is because of its association with quality of outcomes, usually not just because of publicity. It's a positive vicious circle: good brands attract quality people who keep it valuable. They have high specificity, but not 100%, and their sensitivity is low.

 

[Matty44]

Baseline probability huh? Consider the first bar pass rate at HLS and YLS is about 96 percent and Capital Law (for first time takers) under 50 percent...which means you even legally practice the law, hows that for a baseline.

You just like to hear yourself talk huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matty44]

@BoolaHI
And I really do tend not to take my advice from a person who didn't even go to college. Hence Beck seems to be out. (Bill Gates is not.)

That’s logically consistent [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

You just like to hear yourself talk huh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nary a rebuttal or response. Schools in this context, not just matter, they matter a lot.

 

[deleted171991]

That’s logically consistent [emoji849]

No. That just shows you know nothing about Bill Gates. Par for the course. 😉

"At 17, Gates formed a venture with Allen called Traf-O-Data to make traffic counters based on the Intel 8008 processor.[36] In 1972, he served as a congressional page in the House of Representatives.[37][38] He was a National Merit Scholar when he graduated from Lakeside School in 1973.[39] He scored 1590 out of 1600 on the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) and enrolled at Harvard College in the autumn of 1973.[40][41] He chose a pre-law major but took mathematics and graduate level computer science courses.[42] While at Harvard, he met fellow student Steve Ballmer. Gates left Harvard after two years while Ballmer stayed and graduated magna cum laude. Ballmer succeeded Gates as Microsoft's CEO years later and maintained that position from 2000 until his resignation in 2014.[43]

Gates devised an algorithm for pancake sorting as a solution to one of a series of unsolved problems[44] presented in a combinatorics class by professor Harry Lewis. His solution held the record as the fastest version for over 30 years;[44][45] its successor is faster by only 1%."

Bill Gates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then he did a ton of other fantastic things, including but not limited to Microsoft (which was the reason he left Harvard).

I really don't care if people like him, Bezos or Musk went to college. Being a tech genius (and I have the education to be a good judge of that) is enough for me.

 

[BoolaHI]

@BoolaHI is right, it DOES matter for law schools; it IS an indicator of brainpower. Just ask the top law firms in this country.

And I really do tend not to take my advice from a person who didn't even go to college. Hence Beck seems to be out. (Bill Gates is not.)

I call that the B&M exception, if you can get into Harvard, sans the Jared Kushner buy your way into both undergrad and law school, then you have the latitude to drop out if you see fit.

 

[deleted171991]

I call that the B&M exception, if you can get into Harvard, sans the Jared Kushner buy your way into both undergrad and law school, then you have the latitude to drop out if you see fit.

Daddy was a rich lawyer, so you can't argue the lack of buy-in. But Bill was a genius, so I doubt money mattered a lot.

 

[BoolaHI]

Daddy was a rich lawyer, so you can't argue the lack of buy-in. But Bill was a genius, so I doubt money mattered a lot.

It’s obvious, Bill got in on the merits—the M portion refers to Zuckerberg another Harvard dropout.

 

[Matty44]

No. That just shows you know nothing about Bill Gates. Par for the course. 😉

"At 17, Gates formed a venture with Allen called Traf-O-Data to make traffic counters based on the Intel 8008 processor.[36] In 1972, he served as a congressional page in the House of Representatives.[37][38] He was a National Merit Scholar when he graduated from Lakeside School in 1973.[39] He scored 1590 out of 1600 on the Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) and enrolled at Harvard College in the autumn of 1973.[40][41] He chose a pre-law major but took mathematics and graduate level computer science courses.[42] While at Harvard, he met fellow student Steve Ballmer. Gates left Harvard after two years while Ballmer stayed and graduated magna cum laude. Ballmer succeeded Gates as Microsoft's CEO years later and maintained that position from 2000 until his resignation in 2014.[43]

Gates devised an algorithm for pancake sorting as a solution to one of a series of unsolved problems[44] presented in a combinatorics class by professor Harry Lewis. His solution held the record as the fastest version for over 30 years;[44][45] its successor is faster by only 1%."

Bill Gates - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And then he did a ton of other fantastic things, including but not limited to Microsoft (which was the reason he left Harvard).

I really don't care if people like him, Bezos or Musk went to college. Being a tech genius (and I have the education to be a good judge of that) is enough for me.

Don’t judge a book by its cover is my point, even if that binding says Harvard on it, and I think you and I are kinda (maybe) on the same page. Mr Boo on the other hand, as is usually the case, is in his own little world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted171991]

It’s obvious, Bill got in on the merits—the M portion refers to Zuckerberg another Harvard dropout.

That only shows that truly smart people know that a Harvard degree is not worth it.

 

[Matty44]

Nary a rebuttal or response. Schools in this context, not just matter, they matter a lot.

I have no desire to rebut an argument about acceptance to certain law schools or law firms. It’s never been my point. And as is so often the case Don, you’re fighting battles that no one else is in.

And to further my point, you claim to have gone to a prestigious law school, yet through our interactions, you have on countless occasions failed to even comprehend WHAT the point is that people are making, let alone make a coherent argument to counter that point, that I couldnt care less about where you were trained.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

Don’t judge a book by its cover is my point, even if that binding says Harvard on it, and I think you and I are kinda (maybe) on the same page. Mr Boo on the other hand, as is usually the case, is in his own little world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And for that I am glad. A world where Beck becomes some type of faux scholarship, that elite institutions should be something we disbelief while at the same time we cite quackery sites as an actual academic refernece and the disbelief that women are actually sexually assaulted in high frequency and that there is not racial inequality as we speak....frankly, you can have that world and I’ll count it as a blessing to have never visited.

 

[Matty44]

And for that I am glad. A world where Beck becomes some type of faux scholarship, that elite institutions should be something we disbelief while at the same time we cite quackery sites as an actual academic refernece and the disbelief that women are actually sexually assaulted in high frequency and that there is not racial inequality as we speak....frankly, you can have that world and I’ll count it as a blessing to have never visited.

Where’s that yawning emoji....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BoolaHI]

That only shows that truly smart people know that a Harvard degree is not worth it.

Basic cost benefit analysis: for some it is, for some, there is a lost opportunity cost that would be better served else where.

 

[BoolaHI]

Where’s that yawning emoji....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably where you last left it, your bedroom.

 

[deleted171991]

And for that I am glad. A world where Beck becomes some type of faux scholarship, that elite institutions should be something we disbelief while at the same time we cite quackery sites as an actual academic refernece and the disbelief that women are actually sexually assaulted in high frequency and that there is not racial inequality as we speak....frankly, you can have that world and I’ll count it as a blessing to have never visited.

Don't. Even. Bother. Going. There.

One of the signature brainfarts of both the (semi-)extreme right and left is complete distrust in authority and expertise. It's a form of "wokeness". Personally, to me, it's a form of supreme stupidity, but that's just me. I tend to associate both being "woke" and hating "the mainstream media" with human stupidity. But that's just me and my life experience. It may be a generational thing; I somehow doubt that.

 

[BoolaHI]

That’s great. I tend to associate the brain power of someone with the veracity of what they say and do.

For example, I work with a doc who trained and worked for 20+ years at one of the top medical institutions in the country and is well published. But they say and do some of the dumbest things clinically that you’ll ever see. And it’s a consensus amongst everyone who works with them. No one could care less about their background, but I couldn’t name one person I work with who would let them care for anyone in their family.

If you wanna put your trust in what someone says just cause of where they went to school, feel free. I just think it’s a crappy measure of validity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lovely anecdotal example - just lovely.

 

[Matty44]

Lovely anecdotal example - just lovely.

Thanks. I think it clearly illustrates my (should be non-controversial) point that each claim by an individual should be judged on its own merits, and not determined truthful or untruthful based on the background of the person saying it. But as someone who viciously attacks every SOURCE of information, and not the content itself, I don't expect you to understand that. Perhaps others do...

 

[deleted171991]

Thanks. I think it clearly illustrates my (should be non-controversial) point that each claim by an individual should be judged on its own merits, and not determined truthful or untruthful based on the background of the person saying it. But as someone who viciously attacks every SOURCE of information, and not the content itself, I don't expect you to understand that. Perhaps others do...

Holy crap! Of course the background matters, especially when the source of the claim has something to gain/loose. When Putin tells you that Russia did not help Trump it doesn't have the same value of truth as when a lot of American intelligence agencies say the opposite.

We are not talking about measurable or reproducible science here, or clearly provable facts. We are talking about (there we go again) likelihoods (of true/false).

I really don't want to be rude or condescending, but please consider that internal medicine is a probabilistic science, while anesthesia is mostly not. So a critical care physician and a CAA may think differently about life, science, you name it. To me, almost every piece of data matters, including the quality of the source and its biases. Most things in life are not 2+2, more like 2+x. To me. That could explain why I see gray where you may see black or white. Different people, different educations, different life experiences. That may explain why you don't click with @BoolaHI either (or I don't click with most surgical people), or some of us don't see the world the same way as you and others.

I am only saying this because, if true, this discussion is futile. Some of us see a bird where others see an airplane. Let's just agree to differ instead of insulting each other.

 

[Matty44]

Holy crap! Of course the background matters, especially when the source of the claim has something to gain/loose. When Putin tells you that Russia did not help Trump it doesn't have the same value of truth as when a lot of American intelligence agencies say the opposite.

We are not talking about measurable or reproducible science here, or clearly provable facts. We are talking about (there we go again) likelihoods (of true/false).

I really don't want to be rude or condescending, but please consider that internal medicine is a probabilistic science, while anesthesia is mostly not. So a critical care physician and a CAA may think differently about life, science, you name it. To me, almost every piece of data matters, including the quality of the source and its biases. Most things in life are not 2+2, more like 2+x. To me. That could explain why I see gray where you may see black or white. Different people, different educations, different life experiences. That may explain why you don't click with @BoolaHI either.

Maybe you're not hearing me, or perhaps I'm not being clear enough. Of course the source can play a role in your initial reaction to the truthfulness of a claim and maybe how much effort you are going to spend to verify if a claim as valid. If Alex Jones claims something, I'll be much more wary of the claim than if say Chris Wallace makes a claim. HOWEVER, one cannot simply dismiss something and say its false SIMPLY because it was made by Alex Jones. I'm sure he has made truthful claims in his life. I find it very weak/disingenuous when someone IMMEDIATELY discounts a claim as false SOLELY because of the source. If you wanna say there's a chance something is untrue cause of the source and you're too lazy to investigate it, fine. But to simply deny any credibility to a claim and assume its for sure false SOLELY because of the source is just poor form.

 

[deleted171991]

Maybe you're not hearing me, or perhaps I'm not being clear enough. Of course the source can play a role in your initial reaction to the truthfulness of a claim and maybe how much effort you are going to spend to verify if a claim as valid. If Alex Jones claims something, I'll be much more wary of the claim than if say Chris Wallace makes a claim. HOWEVER, one cannot simply dismiss something and say its false SIMPLY because it was made by Alex Jones. I'm sure he has made truthful claims in his life. I find it very weak/disingenuous when someone IMMEDIATELY discounts a claim as false SOLELY because of the source. If you wanna say there's a chance something is untrue cause of the source and you're too lazy to investigate it, fine. But to simply deny any credibility to a claim and assume its for sure false SOLELY because of the source is just poor form.

I am sorry, but my brain doesn't work like this. My brain uses pre-test probabilities (life is short, and I have better things to do). The pre-test probability of Alex Jones saying ANYTHING of value, based on his past performance, is abysmal. Hence I don't even bother. It's the story of the kid who kept crying wolf.

I keep telling progressives to stop whining about minor stuff for the same reason. Lack of signal is noise, and one doesn't want to be labeled as a source of noise.

Obviously, the same doesn't apply to Chris Wallace, even if I disagree.

 

[Dr.J.D]

stock market does not equal the economy.

 

[Matty44]

I am sorry, but my brain doesn't work like this. My brain uses pre-test probabilities. The pre-test probability of Alex Jones saying ANYTHING of value, based on his past performance, is abysmal. Hence I don't even bother. It's the story of the kid who kept crying wolf.

I keep telling progressives to stop whining about minor stuff for the same reason. Lack of signal is noise, and one doesn't want to be labeled as a source of noise.

Obviously, the same doesn't apply to Chris Wallace, even if I disagree.

Ok, guess I’ll leave it at that then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vector2]

-----
Giuliani-Pompeo contacts before Yovanovitch ouster are seen in newly released State Dept. documents

The State Department late Friday released 100 pages of court-ordered documents that show President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke on the phone at least twice in late March within the same time frame of events currently under investigation in a House impeachment inquiry.

The released records seemed to confirm testimony from several key witnesses, including U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, who testified this week that senior Trump administration officials were involved in the president’s efforts to convince Ukraine to launch a probe into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden’s business dealings in the country. The 100 pages also included information related to House Democrats’ claims that Giuliani launched a so-called “smear campaign” against then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, leading to her ouster.

The documents were published by American Oversight, a nonprofit ethics watchdog investigating the Trump administration, which filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act for information related to the Trump administration’s dealings in Ukraine. The group seemed to find a loophole in the White House’s objections to cooperating in House impeachment hearings after Congress issued a subpoena for similar information.

“That American Oversight could obtain these documents establishes that there is no legal basis for the administration to withhold them from Congress,” American Oversight Executive Director Austin Evers said in a statement. “That conclusively shows that the administration is engaged in obstruction of justice. The president and his allies should ask themselves if impeachment for obstruction is worth it if the strategy isn’t even going to be effective.

Trump administration officials declining to testify on Capitol Hill have included acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; John Eisenberg, the lead attorney for the National Security Council; Robert Blair, a top aide to Mulvaney; Michael Ellis, a National Security Council aide; and Brian McCormack, an Office of Management and Budget aide.

Included in the documents were records of a March 27 email exchange in which Trump’s former assistant Madeleine Westerhout helped put Giuliani’s team in touch with Pompeo after Giuliani’s assistant said she had "been trying and getting nowhere through regular channels," according to a copy of the documents supplied to Fox News after the nonprofit’s website crashed. Westerhout emailed an unnamed State Department official for contact information for “S,” a reference to Pompeo. She eventually sent the phone number to Giuliani’s assistant after the State Department official responded.

The emails seemed to back up Sondland’s claims that many top officials were involved, at the “express direction” of the president, in his request for the Biden probe, as well as information about the hacking of the DNC server in 2016. During his hearing Wednesday, the ambassador reneged in his original testimony and, instead, affirmed that there was an explicit trade of U.S. military aid to Ukraine tied in exchange for political favors.

“Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’ Sondland said. “The answer is yes.”

“Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," he added.

The documents also supported testimony from U.S. diplomat David Hale who told the House Intelligence Committee that Pompeo and Giuliani spoke on the phone twice in late March. The records showed that Giuliani and Pompeo were scheduled to speak on the phone once on March 26, before the email exchange, and again on March 29. The topics of conversation were not listed. Pompeo also was scheduled to speak with Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., on April 1. The ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee has sharply defended Trump throughout impeachment hearings.

“It was designed to produce a specific storyline to be pushed forward by the Democrats and their supporters in the media,” Nunes said Thursday about the hearings.

These conversations occurred around the same time Yovanovitch was called back to Washington in early April before she was eventually fired in May. The career diplomat, who has served both Republican and Democratic presidents, testified last week that she was “kneecapped” by the Trump administration in her efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine. She also said she believed Giuliani played a key role in telling people she was not sufficiently supportive of the president.

Friday’s statement from American Oversight also tied the documents to what they called Giuliani’s “smear campaign” against the ambassador.

“We can see why Mike Pompeo has refused to release this information to Congress. It reveals a clear paper trail from Rudy Giuliani to the Oval Office to Secretary Pompeo to facilitate Giuliani’s smear campaign against a U.S. ambassador,” the statement said.

Also included in the documents was an April 5 letter penned by six former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine – including impeachment witness Bill Taylor – expressing concern over “recent uncorroborated allegations” questioning Yovanovitch’s work at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev. The ambassadors said the claims against Yovanovitch stemmed from a letter written by Pompeo and sent to Trump last May.
----

Giuliani-Pompeo contacts before Yovanovitch ouster are seen in newly released State Dept. documents

The State Department late Friday released 100 pages of court-ordered documents that show President Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke on the phone at least two times in late March within the same time frame of events currently under investigation in a...

www.foxnews.com

 

[BoolaHI]

Thanks. I think it clearly illustrates my (should be non-controversial) point that each claim by an individual should be judged on its own merits, and not determined truthful or untruthful based on the background of the person saying it. But as someone who viciously attacks every SOURCE of information, and not the content itself, I don't expect you to understand that. Perhaps others do...

The profundity of your statement -that truth and veracity is tethered where you place both your beliefs and deference is breathtakingly ironic as the person you most defend, eg, Trump, is a pathological liar by most any definition. But telling....

 

[BoolaHI]

My my, they just love Jim Jordan back in Ohio—not.

Redirect Notice

 

[deleted500612]

stock market does not equal the economy.

No, but stock market, plus unemployment rate, plus median income, plus GDP definitely equals economy. Every single one of those metrics is improved significantly in the last few years. In fact, controlling for inflation, median household income (much more relevant measurement of middle class prosperity than average income) is higher now than at any time since at least before 2005 as far back as this tracking goes...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

Yes, the economy starts to recover during the later Obama years, but it has only continued to improve since then. One can't argue in earnest that Trump hasn't been good for the economy without coming off as a partisan hack.

 

[AMEHigh]

No, but stock market, plus unemployment rate, plus median income, plus GDP definitely equals economy. Every single one of those metrics is improved significantly in the last few years. In fact, controlling for inflation, median household income (much more relevant measurement of middle class prosperity than average income) is higher now than at any time since at least before 2005 as far back as this tracking goes...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

Yes, the economy starts to recover during the later Obama years, but it has only continued to improve since then. One can't argue in earnest that Trump hasn't been good for the economy without coming off as a partisan hack.

Did you read the article you posted? It definitely doesn't come off as super wonderful to credit trump with huge gains in median income.

It states "Median household income for the nation has been increasing every year since 2013, but the year-to-year increase from 2017 is smaller than the prior three years. Previously, increases ranged between 1.8% and 3.3% annually." "Median household income in 2018 was still lower than pre-recession median household income in nine states and Puerto Rico."

Income inequality also increased in several states.

How does that show that trump has done great things for the economy?

Below I think this is a better article that shows the overall picture over time. I would recommend reading it. I'm certainly not an expert, but from my understanding farmers and manufacturing aren't doing great under this administration due to specific policies this administration has put in place (trade war and new tax plan) and manufacturing is in a recession (more info in the article posted). I certainly have tried to look at all of the data and I certainly do not know all of the policies in regards economics that have been put in to place, but it doesn't seem that anything has jumped leaps and bounds in the past 3 years. It seems that many things have followed their projected course and some things have gotten worse. Obviously things could get/be a lot worse under another president, like I'm sure people would argue the economy would be worse if Clinton were elected for example, but I guess we'll never know that.

And lastly, I think the optics aren't great and policies aren't great for us "normal" americans when a tax plan is passed that ultimately helps businesses and millionaires when the president is a business owner and millionaire. Hmm, I wonder what his economic policy priorities are? So with that said I'd say that he has been neutral for the economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/

 

[Dr.J.D]

No, but stock market, plus unemployment rate, plus median income, plus GDP definitely equals economy. Every single one of those metrics is improved significantly in the last few years. In fact, controlling for inflation, median household income (much more relevant measurement of middle class prosperity than average income) is higher now than at any time since at least before 2005 as far back as this tracking goes...

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/09/us-median-household-income-up-in-2018-from-2017.html

Yes, the economy starts to recover during the later Obama years, but it has only continued to improve since then. One can't argue in earnest that Trump hasn't been good for the economy without coming off as a partisan hack.

Trump has done some good things, but overall he is very unpresidential, unclassy, and has many bad beliefs and policies for every good thing( helped economy) he has done. If you want to see partisan hacks, look at all the Trumpers who will support Trump no matter what he does. No president in modern history has been as bad as him.

 

[radsisrad]

Trump's been a very good President, and would have been excellent had the Left not begun its impeachment campaign from the day he earned the presidency.

There are vanishingly few people who support him in every single thing he does. For instance, his bump-stock ban proposal and endorsement of increasing legal immigration to the highest levels ever sparked fierce backlashes from the base.

 

[BoolaHI]

Abandon ship!

Redirect Notice

 

[deleted500612]

Your take espousing "both sides-erism" is mistaken. What was the democratic response when Al Franken was accused of impropriety? They had been going on for months about believing women, so did they act like hypocrites and circle the wagons, or did pretty much every dem come out and say he had to resign pending an ethics investigation?

It's not mistaken, you are comparing apples to dog sh|t. Your example of Al Franken resigning is one of damage control so the DNC can maximize their chances of retaining/gaining power, not an example of giving up power due to a misdeed, quite the opposite... In fact, when he resigned he was replaced with another democrat senator, not a republican. It's more akin to Trump immediately firing Flynn when it came to light he had engaged in misdeeds and lied about it. Oh wow, does that now make Trump very moral and righteous just like the DNC for forcing out Franken? Or is it just damage control so that he has a better chance at retaining power? Come back to me when the democrats willfully throw a presidential election because their candidate is dishonest or corrupt. It won't happen. Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt and dishonest politicians in US history and not only received the backing of her party, but received more votes in the election than Trump did. Your darling democrats aren't as morally steadfast as you'd delusionally like to believe.

As far as all candidates being corrupt, Bernie has been a transparently socialist democrat defender of the people for 50 years. He is hated by special interests. The vast majority of his donations are small-donor and a $27 dollar donation is the amount his campaign encourages. Furthermore, he was among for the poorest members of Congress (similar to Biden) until he wrote a best-selling book.

As for Warren, she has been hated by Wall St and other big money donors ever since she spearheaded the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Her and Bernie's wealth tax is also hated by special interests. The multibillion dollar megainsurance companies would be up in paroxysms if they thought M4A actually had a chance of passing.

The fact that the vast majority of successful people and successful companies (including many companies that always back DNC candidates) hate their policies does not mean they must be good candidates... it's more like a red flag that their policies are not conducive to personal or economic success.

Also Warren's whole career was leveraged on a flagrant lie about her heritage, she also just recently got caught lying at a rally about her kids only attending public schools. It later came to light her son went to Kirby Hall, a private school. This is your best example of an honest democrat?

Your statement that the "next democrat president could snort a line of crack off a hooker's chest" and democrats wouldn't care is not based in reality. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints about the party from many democrats is that too many care about things like the ethics or morality of a candidate's policy as opposed to whether that candidate can actually pull in enough moderates to win ("democrats fall in love, republicans fall in line"). For instance, I think there is an argument to be made that Biden is the most electable candidate, but I'm still not going to vote for him, especially after he put out that garbage stating he is against legalizing cannabis (the criminalization of which has affected hundreds of thousands if not millions of people).

Really? This is one of the most absurd claims I've heard in a long time. So let's see here... One of the biggest complaints about the democratic party is that they are just too ethical and moral? I follow politics extremely closely and have NEVER heard such an absurdly out of touch claim being made by anyone, yet you're saying this is one of biggest and most common complaints about the party?! Lol, please. When asked at a job interview what your biggest weakness is I'm guessing you're the guy who responds with "well I guess sometimes I just work too hard and am too loyal and devoted to my employer". Excuse me while I suppress my gag reflex. First of all there is no universe where a widely cited weakness of a politician is "being too honest and moral". Those are like the elusive unicorn traits of politics where every voter wants it but no politicians have it. Secondly, the democrats are very far from honest or moral (as are the republicans and politicians in general) and would certainly not have such a problem of just being "too damn ethical". Thirdly, just wow dude.

 

[deleted500612]

Did you read the article you posted? It definitely doesn't come off as super wonderful to credit trump with huge gains in median income.

It states "Median household income for the nation has been increasing every year since 2013, but the year-to-year increase from 2017 is smaller than the prior three years. Previously, increases ranged between 1.8% and 3.3% annually." "Median household income in 2018 was still lower than pre-recession median household income in nine states and Puerto Rico."

Income inequality also increased in several states.

How does that show that trump has done great things for the economy?

Below I think this is a better article that shows the overall picture over time. I would recommend reading it. I'm certainly not an expert, but from my understanding farmers and manufacturing aren't doing great under this administration due to specific policies this administration has put in place (trade war and new tax plan) and manufacturing is in a recession (more info in the article posted). I certainly have tried to look at all of the data and I certainly do not know all of the policies in regards economics that have been put in to place, but it doesn't seem that anything has jumped leaps and bounds in the past 3 years. It seems that many things have followed their projected course and some things have gotten worse. Obviously things could get/be a lot worse under another president, like I'm sure people would argue the economy would be worse if Clinton were elected for example, but I guess we'll never know that.

And lastly, I think the optics aren't great and policies aren't great for us "normal" americans when a tax plan is passed that ultimately helps businesses and millionaires when the president is a business owner and millionaire. Hmm, I wonder what his economic policy priorities are? So with that said I'd say that he has been neutral for the economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/20/trump-v-obama-economy-charts/

Of course I read it. You are taking the data out of context. Yes economic growth was greater while recovering from a recession... obviously. Did you really think it would maintain that level of growth or even accelerate further once out of recession? That's not realistic and ignores the context of the numbers. It's like an athlete performing at a certain baseline level, then suddenly breaking their ankle. When they start rehab they are going to be weak but recover to their previous strength at a relatively quick pace. Once they reach their previous performance level the progress will slow down significantly. To argue the coach that took over training after the rehab phase is worse because the athlete was not increasing his strength at the same rate as during rehab would be a ridiculous argument, especially when the athlete later goes on to reach multiple personal bests.

I found another chart of inflation-adjusted median household income going back to the 1960s. The median household income under Trump is the highest in US history. There were a couple income peaks in 2000 and 2007 that came close, and Obama almost got back to that level in 2015, but Trump took it to a new high. Obama may have very well reached the same high, to say he would or would not have would be speculation. But when median household income has literally never been higher in the history of the country than under Trump it comes off as exhaustingly partisan when people desperately try to discredit the Trump economy.

US Median Real Income - Multpl

US Median Real Income chart, historic, and current data. Current US Median Real Income is 74,580.00.

www.multpl.com

I get why many hate Trump, I really do. I am far from a steadfast Trump-supporter who blindly agrees with everything he does. I don't think he's a good person, or an honest person, or even a likeable person. I do however, agree with a lot of his policy platform, but am absolutely willing to criticize him elsewhere, especially in his personal conduct. I also have absolutely no issue saying that Obama did some good things and giving him credit where it's due. However, one common trait of TDS-inflicted democrats is that they will absolutely refuse to give Trump credit where credit is due, and by all objective measures there are areas where credit is due. It then comes off as highly hypocritical when they criticize Trump supporters for never criticizing or disagreeing with anything he does. That level of hyper-polarized derangement goes both ways and if you aren't self-aware enough to recognize that you aren't any different than the steadfast MAGA zealots you criticize.

 

[deleted171991]

Ouch!

Jim Jordan was imposed on us for egregiously partisan reasons. Now he’s afflicting the nation.

Everything about Jim Jordan reeks of a man willing to cast aside common decency and fairness in service of a corrupt and cruel president. He may be the most unfit man to ever represent part of Greater Cleveland in Congress, writes Brent Larkin.

www.cleveland.com

 

[AMEHigh]

Of course I read it. You are taking the data out of context. Yes economic growth was greater while recovering from a recession... obviously. Did you really think it would maintain that level of growth or even accelerate further once out of recession? That's not realistic and ignores the context of the numbers. It's like an athlete performing at a certain baseline level, then suddenly breaking their ankle. When they start rehab they are going to be weak but recover to their previous strength at a relatively quick pace. Once they reach their previous performance level the progress will slow down significantly. To argue the coach that took over training after the rehab phase is worse because the athlete was not increasing his strength at the same rate as during rehab would be a ridiculous argument, especially when the athlete later goes on to reach multiple personal bests.

I found another chart of inflation-adjusted median household income going back to the 1960s. The median household income under Trump is the highest in US history. There were a couple income peaks in 2000 and 2007 that came close, and Obama almost got back to that level in 2015, but Trump took it to a new high. Obama may have very well reached the same high, to say he would or would not have would be speculation. But when median household income has literally never been higher in the history of the country than under Trump it comes off as exhaustingly partisan when people desperately try to discredit the Trump economy.

US Median Real Income - Multpl

US Median Real Income chart, historic, and current data. Current US Median Real Income is 74,580.00.

www.multpl.com

I get why many hate Trump, I really do. I am far from a steadfast Trump-supporter who blindly agrees with everything he does. I don't think he's a good person, or an honest person, or even a likeable person. I do however, agree with a lot of his policy platform, but am absolutely willing to criticize him elsewhere, especially in his personal conduct. I also have absolutely no issue saying that Obama did some good things and giving him credit where it's due. However, one common trait of TDS-inflicted democrats is that they will absolutely refuse to give Trump credit where credit is due, and by all objective measures there are areas where credit is due. It then comes off as highly hypocritical when they criticize Trump supporters for never criticizing or disagreeing with anything he does. That level of hyper-polarized derangement goes both ways and if you aren't self-aware enough to recognize that you aren't any different than the steadfast MAGA zealots you criticize.

Ok thanks for your response.
I just posted the other article to point out all the different variables of economy that should be taken in to consideration.
Like I said I’m certainly not an economist so I was wondering about the policies that you are mentioning that have caused this significant increase in median incomes.

I certainly think his policies have been positive for certain groups of people, like businesses and super high income earners, so he deserves credit there. But like I posted manufacturing is also in a recession and we know farmers are suffering and the stock market has had its ups and downs mostly due to the trade wars. So yes median income is one positive aspect of the economy in many states.

And maybe it’s naive of me, but I certainly think that a person’s personal conduct and behaviors influence their worldview and policies.

 

[BoolaHI]

Until the cows come home— see what I did?!

Redirect Notice

 

[vector2]

It's not mistaken, you are comparing apples to dog sh|t. Your example of Al Franken resigning is one of damage control so the DNC can maximize their chances of retaining/gaining power, not an example of giving up power due to a misdeed, quite the opposite... In fact, when he resigned he was replaced with another democrat senator, not a republican. It's more akin to Trump immediately firing Flynn when it came to light he had engaged in misdeeds and lied about it. Oh wow, does that now make Trump very moral and righteous just like the DNC for forcing out Franken? Or is it just damage control so that he has a better chance at retaining power? Come back to me when the democrats willfully throw a presidential election because their candidate is dishonest or corrupt. It won't happen. Hillary Clinton is one of the most corrupt and dishonest politicians in US history and not only received the backing of her party, but received more votes in the election than Trump did. Your darling democrats aren't as morally steadfast as you'd delusionally like to believe.

Firstly, can you stop mixing up the DNC and the generalized democratic party? They are not the same thing.

Yes, Franken was a replaced by a Democrat. No, it's not the same thing as your dumb comparison to Flynn because Franken was still popular with his constituency and much of the national party at the time he resigned. He was well-liked and was perhaps even a future prez candidate. Even though his replacement was D, nobody even knows that person's name, and overall, the loss of Franken is a net negative and probably would've blown over .

"Come back when they throw an election?" HRC the most dishonest, corrupt politician you know? LOL, GTFO with your nonsense. I'm not a fan of HRC and I didnt vote for her, but you're as delusional as Mikkel or Matty with that claim. Post some proof of wrongdoing beyond EMAILS before you get laughed out of the room.

The fact that the vast majority of successful people and successful companies (including many companies that always back DNC candidates) hate their policies does not mean they must be good candidates... it's more like a red flag that their policies are not conducive to personal or economic success.

Or it's a red flag that there are some candidates who can't be bought like every other jerk in DC. There is only one party right now that is serious about campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.

Also Warren's whole career was leveraged on a flagrant lie about her heritage, she also just recently got caught lying at a rally about her kids only attending public schools. It later came to light her son went to Kirby Hall, a private school. This is your best example of an honest democrat?

That's the best you can come up with? Ignoring principled Bernie and then bringing up her heritage and her kid going to private school? Sounds like mother Theresa compared to the criminal in the WH. And no, Warren is not the best example. I brought her up because shes among the leaders of the dem field.

Really? This is one of the most absurd claims I've heard in a long time. So let's see here... One of the biggest complaints about the democratic party is that they are just too ethical and moral? I follow politics extremely closely and have NEVER heard such an absurdly out of touch claim being made by anyone, yet you're saying this is one of biggest and most common complaints about the party?! Lol, please. When asked at a job interview what your biggest weakness is I'm guessing you're the guy who responds with "well I guess sometimes I just work too hard and am too loyal and devoted to my employer". Excuse me while I suppress my gag reflex. First of all there is no universe where a widely cited weakness of a politician is "being too honest and moral". Those are like the elusive unicorn traits of politics where every voter wants it but no politicians have it. Secondly, the democrats are very far from honest or moral (as are the republicans and politicians in general) and would certainly not have such a problem of just being "too damn ethical". Thirdly, just wow dude.

Jesus, man, learn to read before you get too excited responding to something I never said. I was talking about the voters and candidates' policies. I stated specifically "too many [dem voters] care about things like the ethics or morality of a candidate's policy " as opposed to that candidate's electability. And then I spoke about Biden's cannabis policy. I'm sure in your right-wing bubble where you "follow politics extremely closely" it may be unimaginable to believe that many liberal voters actually care about whether a candidate's position on the environment, immigration, LGBTQ, healthcare etc is ethical vs just how much money it costs or whether a far left stance hurts that candidate's electability. Hence, the reason Bernie and Warren have had surges even though many dems let alone a moderate like FFP would never vote for them.

But if you want to talk about personal character, just consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that the two parties aren't two sides of the same coin. You have one party where Weiner and Franken are gone, and another where a pedophile ran against Doug Jones (and almost won), a neonazi is still in Congress and another is a presidential advisor, and POTUS has more scandals related to business, politics, and sexual assault/harassment than any politician in history.

 

[Dr.J.D]

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"maybe their all lying"

 

[Dr.J.D]

Trump's been a very good President, and would have been excellent had the Left not begun its impeachment campaign from the day he earned the presidency.

There are vanishingly few people who support him in every single thing he does. For instance, his bump-stock ban proposal and endorsement of increasing legal immigration to the highest levels ever sparked fierce backlashes from the base.

Respect your opinion, but if you think Trump is a very good president, then your wrong because the economy is one factor out of many more that make a president successful. Also if you look at the facts, most democrats did not support impeachment until Ukraine.

The thing that does it for me is just imagining Obama doing/saying even 2 or 3 things out of the 100's of controversies, gaffes, racist statements, scandals, illegal activity- or him having several member of his camp being arrested on corruption. Obama would've been more viciously attacked than Trump is by the left.
If you dont believe me, remember the birther, Michelle's sleeves, and the most disgusting of political scandals since watergate-

"A nightmare" "Shocking to a lot of people" "A sign to enemies he's a wimp": @ChrislHayes remembers the days when presidential scandals involved conservatives freaking out about Obama's tan suit. https://on.msnbc.com/328AgpE

 

[Matty44]

Firstly, can you stop mixing up the DNC and the generalized democratic party? They are not the same thing.

Yes, Franken was a replaced by a Democrat. No, it's not the same thing as your dumb comparison to Flynn because Franken was still popular with his constituency and much of the national party at the time he resigned. He was well-liked and was perhaps even a future prez candidate. Even though his replacement was D, nobody even knows that person's name, and overall, the loss of Franken is a net negative and probably would've blown over .

"Come back when they throw an election?" HRC the most dishonest, corrupt politician you know? LOL, GTFO with your nonsense. I'm not a fan of HRC and I didnt vote for her, but you're as delusional as Mikkel or Matty with that claim. Post some proof of wrongdoing beyond EMAILS before you get laughed out of the room.



Or it's a red flag that there are some candidates who can't be bought like every other jerk in DC. There is only one party right now that is serious about campaign finance reform and lobbying reform.



That's the best you can come up with? Ignoring principled Bernie and then bringing up her heritage and her kid going to private school? Sounds like mother Theresa compared to the criminal in the WH. And no, Warren is not the best example. I brought her up because shes among the leaders of the dem field.



Jesus, man, learn to read before you get too excited responding to something I never said. I was talking about the voters and candidates' policies. I stated specifically "too many [dem voters] care about things like the ethics or morality of a candidate's policy " as opposed to that candidate's electability. And then I spoke about Biden's cannabis policy. I'm sure in your right-wing bubble where you "follow politics extremely closely" it may be unimaginable to believe that many liberal voters actually care about whether a candidate's position on the environment, immigration, LGBTQ, healthcare etc is ethical vs just how much money it costs or whether a far left stance hurts that candidate's electability. Hence, the reason Bernie and Warren have had surges even though many dems let alone a moderate like FFP would never vote for them.

But if you want to talk about personal character, just consider for a moment that maybe, just maybe, there's a chance that the two parties aren't two sides of the same coin. You have one party where Weiner and Franken are gone, and another where a pedophile ran against Doug Jones (and almost won), a neonazi is still in Congress and another is a presidential advisor, and POTUS has more scandals related to business, politics, and sexual assault/harassment than any politician in history.

I was gonna respond to a bunch of nonsense in your post but I’m gonna save my breath. The fact that you think Al Franken could’ve been president and that HRC wasn’t corrupt [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] make this post too laughable to give a credible response.

Ya know, someone recently on the radio opined interestingly about liberals and summed it up nicely when they said “leftists/liberals don’t have any understanding that they are partisan, they merely think they are right and everyone else is clueless.” You think me and Mikkel and others live in some conservative clueless bubble and you simply espouse normal, correct, and moral thinking. I think the true reality is that you live in a leftist bubble, it’s just such a big bubble you aren’t aware your in it.

Happy Saturday Vec Man [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr.J.D]

I was gonna respond to a bunch of nonsense in your post but I’m gonna save my breath. The fact that you think Al Franken could’ve been president and that HRC wasn’t corrupt [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] make this post too laughable to give a credible response.

Ya know, someone recently on the radio opined interestingly about liberals and summed it up nicely when they said “leftists/liberals don’t have any understanding that they are partisan, they merely think they are right and everyone else is clueless.” You think me and Mikkel and others live in some conservative clueless bubble and you simply espouse normal, correct, and moral thinking. I think the true reality is that you live in a leftist bubble, it’s just such a big bubble you aren’t aware your in it.

Happy Saturday Vec Man [emoji57]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I mean nowadays you never know who could be pres. Also the right today is full of people who will kiss trumps behind no matter what he does. Maybe the whole snowflake sjw triggered thing worked when criticizing liberals in the past, but geez the right has no shame. Just look at ol' Linsdey Graham

 

[Matty44]

I mean nowadays you never know who could be pres. Also the right today is full of people who will kiss trumps behind no matter what he does. Maybe the whole snowflake sjw triggered thing worked when criticizing liberals in the past, but geez the right has no shame. Just look at ol' Linsdey Graham

I really don’t think that’s the case. I’ve never met anyone like that before. But what are the options when you still want the lesser of two evils in office?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr.J.D]

I really don’t think that’s the case. I’ve never met anyone like that before. But what are the options when you still want the lesser of two evils in office?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

literally all of congress opposing impeachment along party lines proves my point. Also you really think Trump was the lesser of two evils in 2016? Well, you wont be able to use that in 2020 because literally every other candidate is not nearly as corrupt as HRC, and many are moderates. btw I agree HRC is the definition of a political machine

 

[Matty44]

literally all of congress opposing impeachment along party lines proves my point. Also you really think Trump was the lesser of two evils in 2016? Well, you wont be able to use that in 2020 because literally every other candidate is not nearly as corrupt as HRC, and many are moderates. btw I agree HRC is the definition of a political machine

Absolutely in 2016, and even more so in 2020. It’s not even close. Despite Trumps lack of decorum, poor cabinet choices, annoying tweets, general brashness, etc etc. He’s still way less destructive, and in some cases helpful, to society and keeping America from drifting into a fully liberal hell hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk