Trump blasts media, calls journalists 'very unpatriotic' for reporting on government

[Naiyano]

anti Trump haters? So his own people or what?

[Noxx79]

Factual reporting like this?

Wow, you’re incredibly stupid. Did you fail 9th grade social studies? There’s a difference between opinion and fact. Now tell me about the massive number of people buying non existent health plans.

[Felya]

Factual reporting like this?

How about actual links, instead of images? I cannot tell what quarter they are talking about, but I can read that one of them was from February. First quarter GDP was under 3%... that image is intentionally made to be lying.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow, you’re incredibly stupid. Did you fail 9th grade social studies? There’s a difference between opinion and fact. Now tell me about the massive number of people buying non existent health plans.

Check the dates on the ones you can see. Some are from May, but I can spot at least one from February. You cannot tell if they are talking about Q1, with at least the February quote being likely about Q1.

I think people are skipping the first question that should be asked... why are these links in a form of an image and dates are unseen on most? The second question is what time span these are talking about. They just adjusted the Q1 number, still under 2.5, but even in May... it is feasible they were talking about Q1, when saying it is impossible to hit 3% after adjustment, even in May.

- - - Updated - - -

Let’s go over his links...

Why is Trump's 3-percent growth target pure folly? Because math.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...-folly-because

Since 1950, the economy has grown on average by 3.2 percent per year. Yet now, the Congressional Budget Office — consistent with other forecasters — is projecting growth will average below 2 percent over the next decade. Thus, a top national objective should be to increase our economic growth to provide America with a larger economic pie. On that, hopefully, we can all agree.

In the 1960s, we grew at an average rate of 4.3 percent; that’s when baby boomers entered the workforce. In the 1990s, we grew at 3.5 percent as the boomers reached their prime working years. Now, in order to achieve 3 percent sustained growth given that the boomers are retiring, we would need to exceed the nation’s record levels of productivity growth or implausibly see a return of capital growth, productivity growth and labor force participation to above what we experienced in the 1990s.

I was right about this one. If this was a link, it would be easy to tell they are talking about the whole tenure of Trump and not the only quarter where he broke 3%.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, this is behind a paywall, but the first paragraph explains it good enough:

Trump’s 3% Growth Target Looks Out of Reach
https://www.wsj.com/articles/nice-3-...ere-1495550536

Great leaders, whether of sports teams, companies or countries, set audacious goals to spur followers on to great accomplishments. But the goal isn’t enough: A leader also needs a credible path to achieve it.

That’s the problem with President Donald Trump’s first budget. It sets a worthy objective of sustained 3% economic growth, but offers no rigorous plan to back it up.

Again, they are talking about Trump’s tenure. Growth in 2017 was a solid 2.3%, but not 3%. Using Trump hitting over 3% in one of the 6 quarters he presided over, is not showing consistent growth of 3%.

Should media been saying Obama will have 5% growth through his presidency, because he hit 5% once? Silly... but, let’s continue debunking lies...

[Deleted]

I mean it is somewhat the Bush era all over again, the economy is rolling along greatly; problem is that a barrel of shit of corruption, poor decisions and whatnot is rolling parallel, and that barrel eventually hits a bump and breaks open and throws shit everywhere.

[Kiri]

Hey buddy, one of the headlines read “why Trump cant make it 1981 again”, I assume you disagree with that? I wouldnt be surprised if you actually thought that he he could send planet Earth back in time, you gladly eat al his BS.

Btw what year did Trump reach thoose gdp numbers? A quarter is just that, a quarter, and they often get adjusted after the year.

You underestimate people like that. If Trump told them tomorrow that it is the year 1981 again, they would not just defend it, they would praise him for beating the space-time continuum.

[Deleted]

I don't remember Bush's attacks on the media. Care to link them? Also, I don't remember the economy rolling along greatly. I recall a recession.

The point was, the media was also fairly critical of a lot of Bush's behaviour, he never called them out on that, but he did note that the economy was going along, so it couldn't be that bad. But a lot of things were bad, and only worsened with time .

[Felya]

First of all, this is opinion, but she does source her references:

The Trump White House is already cooking the books
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.614ae1e53ff8

As the Wall Street Journal first reported (and as I’ve independently confirmed through my own sources), the Trump transition team instead ordered CEA staffers to predict sustained economic growth of 3 to 3.5 percent. The staffers were then directed to backfill all the other numbers in their models to produce these growth rates.

As in, the person who posted that image, is using the only quarter Trump beat 3%, as an indication of his whole run. Ignoring that both 2017 and q1 2018, were below 2.5% and as good as q2 is, it still does not help the average hit 3%. As she pointed out, this was the exact tact of Trump to hide GDP forecasts.

[Felya]

This is an article from 2017, that is still 100% correct. Trump predicted 3% for 2017, we got less than 2.5. This is not only factual based on their reporting, the ananlysis they are reporting, was correct.

Trump's Budget Assumes 'Unrealistic' Economic Growth, Say Experts
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/eco...xperts-n763666

But with the nation already at almost full employment, that lever doesn't have much room to move. Subtract the retiring baby boomers and a potential withdrawal of immigrant labor, and the number of people available to work shrinks dramatically.

Productivity is also incredibly difficult to nudge, having risen by just 0.6 percent annually over the past five years. Despite advances in automation, innovation, and in our high-tech personal worlds, our efficiency levels have not improved: The amount of goods or services produced in one hour is not dramatically different from the amount produced in one hour five or 10 years ago.

As in, they are using near full employment, as the reason why sustained increased growth is unlikely. With near full employment, existing workers would need to increase productivity. So..... why are you reading this? Get back to work and help the country!

- - - Updated - - -

Okay... I can go on, because all of the articles are pretty repetitive, since they are all talking about the same thing. But, I should have proven my point of how dishonest it is to post an image of links. Just... think of that concept... you are posting on a forum, where you can link any article. But, instead, you post an image that people cannot click and even the dates are abscured? That’s dishonesty and if you needed any evidance of why those projections are correct... it is your need to lie about them.

- - - Updated - - -

The point was, the media was also fairly critical of a lot of Bush's behaviour, he never called them out on that, but he did note that the economy was going along, so it couldn't be that bad. But a lot of things were bad, and only worsened with time .

In 2008 GOP convention nominating McCain. The economy wasn’t even a bullet point. The same week as the convention, 3 banks failed. The economy under Bush only became an issue towards the end. It’s why McCain won primaries. He was supposed to be the war time president, not a candidate that needed to take time off from his campaign to refocus on the economy. In fact Bush tax cuts were not justified on Bush’s great economy, it was giving back because the economy was booming under Clinton.

[Deleted]

Again, during his tenure we had a recession. We also went from a budget surplus to a MASSIVE deficit. What are you talking about?

No, he started on a small recession, made some headway and made a middling economy and ended with a massive recession.

[Deleted]

Fucking hell, do we need to sit down and explain to you the difference between reporting and opinion? No wonder you dumbfucks think everything is fake news, you can't even find the actual news and are just reading opinion pieces.

Yet you guys often cite from PolitiFact which often has opinion pieces.

Trump: "In the second quarter of this year, the United States economy grew at the amazing rate of 4.1 percent."

What did PolitiFact answer? "Strong but not amazing"
Someone tell them that amazing is an subjective term.

It gets even better

Trump: "We've accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions."
Politifact: "Obama did well too"

You do not see anti-Trump bias, even if your "fact checking source" argues like a 5 year old. Sad

And why is this person flaming undisturbed?

[Poopymonster]

Trump, the real world embodiment of an "internet troll".

During the first repub debate, I thought it was the comments section of Faux News come to life.

[Noxx79]

Yet you guys often cite from PolitiFact which often has opinion pieces.

Trump: "In the second quarter of this year, the United States economy grew at the amazing rate of 4.1 percent."

What did PolitiFact answer? "Strong but not amazing"
Someone tell them that amazing is an subjective term.

It gets even better

Trump: "We've accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions."
Politifact: "Obama did well too"

You do not see anti-Trump bias, even if your "fact checking source" argues like a 5 year old. Sad

And why is this person flaming undisturbed?

But mommy, he said mean things to me... waaaaaa

Also twitter won’t block trump due to “signifance” so his flaming will never be disturbed.

[Sorshen]

Yet you guys often cite from PolitiFact which often has opinion pieces.

Trump: "In the second quarter of this year, the United States economy grew at the amazing rate of 4.1 percent."

What did PolitiFact answer? "Strong but not amazing"
Someone tell them that amazing is an subjective term.

It gets even better

Trump: "We've accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions."
Politifact: "Obama did well too"

You do not see anti-Trump bias, even if your "fact checking source" argues like a 5 year old. Sad

And why is this person flaming undisturbed?

The economy is up cause of record stock buybacks you clown. Wages are not up. Trump's 'trickle down' tax reform, keep that dream alive!

[Felya]

Yet you guys often cite from PolitiFact which often has opinion pieces.

Trump: "In the second quarter of this year, the United States economy grew at the amazing rate of 4.1 percent."

What did PolitiFact answer? "Strong but not amazing"
Someone tell them that amazing is an subjective term.

It gets even better

Trump: "We've accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions."
Politifact: "Obama did well too"

You do not see anti-Trump bias, even if your "fact checking source" argues like a 5 year old. Sad

And why is this person flaming undisturbed?

How is Trump’s unemployment numbers? Still at full employment of 4%? Where is this growth supposed to be coming from, when we have been at or around full employment for a year? You think people are just working harder?

[Deleted]

How is Trump’s unemployment numbers? Still at full employment of 4%? Where is this growth supposed to be coming from, when we have been at or around full employment for a year? You think people are just working harder?

Well to be fair, in that scenario you're creating to some extend a labour shortage, meaning that labour will become more wanted and hence having to compete with higher wages.

[Felya]

Well to be fair, in that scenario you're creating to some extend a labour shortage, meaning that labour will become more wanted and hence having to compete with higher wages.

I didn’t create any scenario. That is what is happening and wages are not rising with inflation.

[Stormspellz]

Factual reporting like this?

Trump hasn't hit 3% annual let alone 4%, Trump has "shamed" companies for doing things he didn't like, hell he shamed the fucking stock market for dropping, Trump "cooking" the books is well documented, from the "forgotten" trillions left out of the budget to not reporting things properly.

So try again.

[Deleted]

I didn’t create any scenario. That is what is happening and wages are not rising with inflation.

No but the theory usually is that with labour shortage comes rising wages, which also tends to up the economy. Fortunately, that is not how it really goes any longer, problem is that even when we are at these low levels of unemployment, the reality is that it isn't because everyone is working these great called for jobs; a lot of them are quite middling, often short term, often isn't full benefits or full hours, so the theory goes askew.

[Endus]

Yet you guys often cite from PolitiFact which often has opinion pieces.

Trump: "In the second quarter of this year, the United States economy grew at the amazing rate of 4.1 percent."

What did PolitiFact answer? "Strong but not amazing"
Someone tell them that amazing is an subjective term.

It gets even better

Trump: "We've accomplished an economic turnaround of historic proportions."
Politifact: "Obama did well too"

You do not see anti-Trump bias, even if your "fact checking source" argues like a 5 year old. Sad

And why is this person flaming undisturbed?

Oh man. Seriously, thanks for this. I couldn't have asked for a better setup.

Okay folks, here we go.

President isn't quoting Politifact, here. He's apparently quoting a tweet by Joe Concha; https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/stat...89677838860288



You can see that Concha specifically frames Politifact's conclusion as "Strong, but not amazing".

Here's the Politifact article that he links to (or you can follow the Twitter link above, and click it yourself); https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...about-economy/

First, it's a truth-o-meter fact-check of a single statement, it's a more-involved article.
Second, Ctrl-F and search for "strong but not amazing". No hits. It's fine if you want to quote Concha, but don't claim you're quoting Politifact when you do so.

The actual quote was this;

This is a strong showing in the context of recent history, and the highest since the third quarter of 2014. But most economists would not use the word "amazing" to describe it.

So the point is that most economists would not use that adjective. They do not make any claim of objective truth. They make a statement about the subjective opinions of experts.


Now, on the the second bullshit claim, bringing up Obama. President tries to mock it by reducing it to "Obama did well too", but here's the actual point;

There’s little question that the economy is in good health right now. But Trump is off-base when he suggests that this required a "turnaround." During the second half, or more, of Obama’s term, the economy was doing well, too.

The point was not that "Obama did well too". It's that Trump's economy did not "turn around" at all. It was already on this path. Obama is the one who turned the economy around. Nothing about the economic pattern under Trump's Presidency is a "turnaround" of any kind; it's a factually incorrect claim.

Really, nothing President claimed was true, here. And he repeated his complete inability to separate opinion from fact.

[Powerogue]

Next up: Making it illegal to criticize the government. He needs to be stopped, he's starting to actually get good at this whole "corruption" madness, instead of just being a standard incompetent, arrogant tool.