Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

So, how's the trade war going?

U.S. trade deficit grows to $54.9 billion in August.

Oh, ouch. An objective fail.

"But wait, didn't it contract in June and July?"

Yeah, but it spiked in August, eating those gains. It's actually gone up in 2019. Want to know what it did in 2018?

"...it went up, didn't it?"

It widened to $621 billion, aka "larger than Obama ever had".

Saaaaaay hold on a second. $54.9 billion in one month would be...$658.8 billion in a year. Wow. The trade war isn't just destroying the GDP, it's actually making the trade gap even wider -- the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do.

[Mayhem]

Unemployment statistics were creatively invented by politicians looking to boost their popularity with the uninformed masses.

It's the pinnacle of the expression "There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics"

Apparently no one in office ever thought, well, this is really just made up bullcrap, we can't work with those numbers at all, we should do something about this.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah.....he should release his tax returns, the only reason Trump has fought so hard to keep them hidden is obvious something highly illegal is going to be found in them.

No no, it's to show how hypocritical the Democrats are. 4D chess and all.

[zenkai]

And wage growth was non existent despite having such a low unemployment rate or should be extremely high.

US wage growth hits nine-year high

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

[zenkai]

It’s almost like Trump is a terrible businessman.

- - - Updated - - -



Almost entirely fueled by the increased minimum wages in various states. Glad you’re on board with $15/hr nationally.

Not even going to debate the cause just correcting the lie.

I will say however, my local McDonalds hires at 12 hr with a 200 dollar sign on bonus despite minimum wage being 7.25. Low unemployment is forcing fast food to pay more.

[Breccia]

US wage growth hits nine-year high

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

That's November. Also, you posted self-contradictory sources:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth

One of your two sources is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Almost entirely fueled by the increased minimum wages in various states.

It also does not deal with inflation. The Fed's rates were much lower in Obama's tenure, with good reason, recovery. Despite Trump yelling NO INFLATION NO COLLUSION there was some eating out of his gains. It's yet another number in which Trump falls behind.

[s_bushido]

Reminder that the unemployment rate is a bullshit statistics that doesn't account for those who have stopped looking for work.

That's only true when it's a Democrat president. Duh.

[zenkai]

*LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER*

That's November. Also, you posted self-contradictory sources:





One of your two sources is wrong.

- - - Updated - - -



It also does not deal with inflation. The Fed's rates were much lower in Obama's tenure, with good reason, recovery. Despite Trump yelling NO INFLATION NO COLLUSION there was some eating out of his gains. It's yet another number in which Trump falls behind.

My source is wrong but link a graphic from one of my sources? Wow... lol....wow...

[Machismo]

My source is wrong but link a graphic from one of my sources? Wow... lol....wow...

He linked it to show how they were wrong...

[Breccia]

He linked it to show how they were wrong...

And I'm also not done. The topic of inflation was brought up. BAM. PEW Research:



That looks pretty flat to me.

[zenkai]

And I'm also not done. The topic of inflation was brought up. BAM. PEW Research:

[IMG]https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/FT_18.07.26_hourlyWage_adjusted.png[/]

That looks pretty flat to me.

HE said wage never grew, he didn't say base on inflation, under Obama if you adjusted for inflation it went down until the last 2 years. I posted facts and data that it had grew.

- - - Updated - - -

Worker wage gains are keeping up with inflation, and then some

[Breccia]

This whole thing is getting "outrages."

Actually, I think it's "outrages" too. Why did it have to be a CIA agent? Why didn't Pompeo, Pence's NSA, or literally anyone else say "Mr. Trump, you can't do that"? Why did it have to be the CIA, who take notes on such calls and have for ages?

Also, bear in mind, "the worst thing about this whole situation is you know Trump did it" is a really lame-ass limp-dick defense of IMPOTUS.

[Felya]

Since polling numbers are being used to somehow show the impeachment will backfire. Anyone want to guess how the approval for impeach and remove of Trump compare to Nixon and Clinton? Clinton never had more approval for impeachment, than disapproval. With around 33% more disappointing. Nixon didn’t have as much of difference, but also had less people approval for impeach and replace. Trump is the first president in modern history, to have impeachment start, with higher (1%) support for impeachment than otherwise.

In short, both Clinton and Nixon, who were impeached, had more people disapprove of it, than approval. Putting Trump in a unique situation that other impeachment didn’t have.

[zenkai]

That’s what contradictory means...

He said my source is wrong but links the same source and doesn't bother linking where he got the graph because he knows hes not telling the whole story

My guess he got the graph but some shit facebook obama fan group, thus why the image is altered.

I mean if we can alter images and upload them to imgur and call them a source and you guys view that as a valid source, then holy shit I'm about to blow all your peoples minds

[zenkai]

Go back and read again. He said your shit was contradictory. Then go look up what that word means. Oh, and the graph is from YOUR source... absolutely brilliant.

Go read your shit again where I pointed out he never linked a valid source of the image. I can link multiple sources, he links a hosted image

You know you have partisan blinds on when you fail to acknowledge that fact

[Breccia]

the middle class is still getting fucked in the ass.

Middle class, you say? BAM! Federal Reserve info!



What's this? Is wage growth, since 2016...slowing down?

2012: 55,900
2016: 61,779
2018: 63,179
Percent real wage growth rate on average 2012-2016: 2.49%
Percent real wage growth rate on average 2016-2018: 1.1%

This includes the previous Nov 2018, just so we're clear.

"Hey what if we take the 3.1% Nov 2018 growth claimed by an earlier post, and make 2019 have that the whole year, including the parts that haven't happened yet?"

Well, for one, that's just flat-out false, so it'd be cheating. But let's do it anyhow.

2019: 65,138
Percent real wage growth rate on average 2016-2019: 1.8% and still behind Obama. Trump can't even win by cheating. Again.

"Hey what if we do that again, but also, take 2017 and give that to Obama, since Trump's policies weren't in effect yet? And that makes Obama's term 2013-2017, so you have to use that peak instead of that dip?"

Um...okay...
2013: 57,856
2017: 62,626 I swear I am not making that number up.
Percent real wage growth rate on average 2013-2017: 1.98%
Percent real wage growth rate on average 2017-2019: 1.96%

Wow. Trump can't even catch Obama's numbers when we put Obama in the worst possible light, and Trump in the best possible light.

That's fucking embarrassing.

[Kiri]

He said my source is wrong but links the same source and doesn't bother linking where he got the graph because he knows hes not telling the whole story

My guess he got the graph but some shit facebook obama fan group, thus why the image is altered.

I mean if we can alter images and upload them to imgur and call them a source and you guys view that as a valid source, then holy shit I'm about to blow all your peoples minds

Why would he need to link to it when you already did? It's the first graph on the site you linked, when you click on 10 year view. The circles were drawn by him for emphasis, but the data itself is not altered.

[zenkai]

Why would he need to link to it when you already did? It's the first graph on the site you linked, when you click on 10 year view. The circles were drawn by him for emphasis, but the data itself is not altered.

Because we have contradicting info and his graph doesn't show the whole picture, how do you know the image wasn't altered?

[Endus]

Because we have contradicting info and his graph doesn't show the whole picture, how do you know the image wasn't altered?

Ask your original source that same question, why don't you? That would at least demonstrate consistency, even though the argument itself is fundamentally dishonest.

[zenkai]

Ask your original source that same question, why don't you? That would at least demonstrate consistency, even though the argument itself is fundamentally dishonest.

I posted links to a source not a hosted image. stop moving goalpost.

[Kiri]

Because we have contradicting info and his graph doesn't show the whole picture, how do you know the image wasn't altered?

Because it is easy to replicate? I mean, I clicked your link, then on 10 years because that is the time frame he chose. It just auto-defaults to a line graph when you do that.
This is not about altering images and data, it is about use of statistics. The same data set can say two very different things when you just change which parameters you view. He looks at a 10 year view, you on the last year from the newest current datapoint and come to a different conclusion. Using statistics in these ways is as old as the discipline itself and regularly gets people to not trust stats.

Again, your info in and of itself is not contradicting, you just look at different datapoints and periods of observation.