Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[rda]

Every time he talks of tariffs the Dow dips. How is that correlation lost on you? Tariff Man is causing this shit thanks to him being an idiot and a bunch of retards voting for him.

Those dips are correlated with Trump talking about increasing tariffs. This isn’t something new and your insults are not helping your point.

Etc.

OK, I see. It was a little hard to understand what we are talking about from Breccia text, but fine, thanks for the clarifications.

The "analysis" in the graph is laughable on multiple counts.

Count 1. I went to check the worst dip - the one for December. Clicked on the provided link for December, Trump's tweet is dated December 29. Do you know what the date of the worst dip circled in red is? December 24, 5 days before the tweet. What happened December 29? Nothing. Slight upward trend. The next small dip is from January 2 to January 3. Go and check it for yourself.

Count 2. The entire approach is stupid. Dips are merely *immediate* reaction to the news. News might be negative in the long run, but if there are some temp profits in the short term, things are going to momentarily spike up. And vice versa. What do you want to measure - overall harm / gain or momentary harm / gain? Of course, the overall. Well, the dips are measuring the momentary. This is stupid.

On a larger point, yes, trade wars are bad, yes, Trump is doing the wrong thing here. I agree with this. But the laughable attempts at "analysis" like the one above discredit the argument. That's all.

[Fahrenheit]

What do you think your red splurges on the graph are showing? I mean, I get that you think you "win" "either way", but what's the relation of the graph? It is a little hard to understand what you even mean, you are so deep in all this multi-year holy fight of yours that you became incoherent and are talking things nobody besides you actually understands.

Are you just playing dumb, or are you?

[Azhran]

Bad faith poster, or a retard, can't decide.

They're not mutually exclusive, so why not both?

[rda]

Are you just playing dumb, or are you?

I answered in #20160. Are you blind or just pretending that you are because you have nothing to say save for personal attacks?

[Felya]

OK, I see. It was a little hard to understand what we are talking about from Breccia text, but fine, thanks for the clarifications.

Little hard to understand flaming? No, I understood just right and provided several links for this week alone. Here is an update from this morning:

Dow futures fall 120 points after Trump tweets 'no need to rush' on China trade deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/us-m...s-kick-in.html

I know you don’t see it, which is why every attempt to dispute it, will result in another link to it happening. At some point, you not being able to see it, will be the problem. Think about it... how many times do I have to link to it happening, before you see it?

- - - Updated - - -

I answered in #20160. Are you blind or just pretending that you are because you have nothing to say save for personal attacks?

You get back, what you put in:

What do you think your red splurges on the graph are showing? I mean, I get that you think you "win" "either way", but what's the relation of the graph? It is a little hard to understand what you even mean, you are so deep in all this multi-year holy fight of yours that you became incoherent and are talking things nobody besides you actually understands.

Oh, and this is why folks call you disingenuous:

But tariffs / trade wars, yes - that's a much more valid critique of Trump than the usual BS.

Is Trump’s trade wars valid criticism or not? Because you seem to be making two different arguments in two different threads.

[rda]

Dow futures fall 120 points after Trump tweets 'no need to rush' on China trade deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/10/us-m...s-kick-in.html

I know you don’t see it, which is why every attempt to dispute it, will result in another link to it happening. At some point, you not being able to see it, will be the problem. Think about it... how many times do I have to link to it happening, before you see it?

I answered this in #20160. Do you want me to re-answer? Fine.

The "analysis" in the graph is laughable on multiple counts.

Count 1. I went to check the worst dip - the one for December. Clicked on the provided link for December, Trump's tweet is dated December 29. Do you know what the date of the worst dip circled in red is? December 24, 5 days before the tweet. What happened December 29? Nothing. Slight upward trend. The next small dip is from January 2 to January 3. Go and check it for yourself.

Count 2. The entire approach is stupid. Dips are merely *immediate* reaction to the news. News might be negative in the long run, but if there are some temp profits in the short term, things are going to momentarily spike up. And vice versa. What do you want to measure - overall harm / gain or momentary harm / gain? Of course, the overall. Well, the dips are measuring the momentary. This is stupid.

On a larger point, yes, trade wars are bad, yes, Trump is doing the wrong thing here. I agree with this. But the laughable attempts at "analysis" like the one above discredit the argument. That's all.

Anything you want to comment on?

[Felya]

I answered this in #20160. Do you want me to re-answer? Fine.

Yeah, I read it, which is why I provided another link you refuse to address and are now spamming.

Trump’s Tariff Tweets Rattle the Stock Market. Here’s What You Need to Know.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/don...ps-51557104293

Your choice... you can continue spamming or address what is literally happening right now with Trump’s tweet yesterday and this morning’s 120 point drop in Dow Futures.

Just a reminder:

But tariffs / trade wars, yes - that's a much more valid critique of Trump than the usual BS.

Valid criticism in one thread, is invalid in another? How does that work?

[rda]

Yeah, I read it, which is why I provided another link you refuse to address and are now spamming.

Trump’s Tariff Tweets Rattle the Stock Market. Here’s What You Need to Know.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/don...ps-51557104293

Your choice... you can continue spamming or address what is literally happening right now with Trump’s tweet yesterday and this morning’s 120 point drop in Dow Futures.

Just a reminder:

What do you want me to address in your link? It fails on my count 2. Yes, the larger point - that tariffs / trade war waged by Trump are bad - is true. But momentary dips are a bad illustration of that, as are dips on Breccia graph, to say nothing of those dips that he misattributed failing on my count 1.

[Felya]

What do you want me to address in your link? It fails on my count 2. Yes, the larger point - that tariffs / trade war waged by Trump are bad - is true. But momentary dips are a bad illustration of that, as are dips on Breccia graph, to say nothing of those dips that he misattributed failing on my count 1.

Yeah, that’s your character. It doesn’t mater how many links are provided. Trump’s tweets have a direct impact on the market. Explicitly because, just like you agreed, the trade wars are a mistake. Thus, it makes perfect sense to anyone unbiased, that his rhetoric on the escalation or relief from trade wars, would correlate with the market.

[rda]

Yeah, that’s your character. It doesn’t mater how many links are provided. Trump’s tweets have a direct impact on the market. Explicitly because, just like you agreed, the trade wars are a mistake. Thus, it makes perfect sense to anyone unbiased, that his rhetoric on the escalation or relief from trade wars, would correlate with the market.

I ADDRESSED your link. Your link fails my count 2. I said that. What more do you want? What the hell do you mean by "it doesn't matter how many links are provided" - I am not ignoring any of your links or any links of others. Did you read what I wrote? Do you understand it? I AGREE that Trump's tweets have a direct impact on the market. But I am saying that the direct impact on the market after tweets is short-term, which is different from long-term, and that you want long-term. It's like pulling teeth. Do you agree? Disagree? Oh, right, you have no opinion. You'll just repeat your myopic pseudo-point again, ignoring what I am saying about it being myopic.

- - - Updated - - -

Just in case:

Is Trump’s trade wars valid criticism or not? Because you seem to be making two different arguments in two different threads.

Valid criticism in one thread, is invalid in another? How does that work?

I am having the same argument in both threads. Tariffs / trade war waged by Trump is bad. But the analysis in Breccia's post is laughable and discredits the argument. In this thread I said this as soon as #20160. Not sure how you read it without noticing.

[Breccia]

34 House Republicans vote for $4.5 billion in aid to American citizens in Puerto Rico. The House passes the bill to the Senate, along with its disaster relief spending for Midwest farmers.

Now McConnell gets to choose:
1) Block farm aid, including vetoing money for Puerto Rico, money Trump bragged about, or
2) Hold a vote anyhow, it likely passes, and make it Trump's problem.

I'll be surprised if McConnell takes a #2 on this one.

[some guy]

I think McConnell has taken enough #2's on US citizens.

[Benggaul]

How pathetic, petty and spoiled can Trump get? Well, the bar just keeps getting lowered...

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/10/185241...at-rick-reilly

Here’s one: While Trump was meeting with Kim [Jong Un] in Singapore, a club championship was held at Trump International, a course Trump built near Mar-a-Lago in Florida for his rich people friends to join. So anyway, a month later, Trump’s there at his golf course, with the Secret Service and the SWAT team guys and all that stuff. And he sees Ted Virtue, one of the financiers behind the movie Green Book.

Virtue — who wouldn’t speak to me directly, but the story was reported by Golf.com and I confirmed it through two other members of the club — was playing with his kid, who I think is 10 or 11 years old. He [Trump] sees Ted on the 9th hole and decides to drive his cart over there. He tells Ted: Congrats on winning the club championship, but you didn’t really win it because I was out of town.

Ted tries to laugh it off, but Trump is dead serious. Trump says, “We’re going to play these last six holes for the championship.” And Ted’s like, “I’m playing with my son, but thanks anyway.” But Trump says, “No, your son can play too.” So they end up playing.

They get to a hole with a big pond on it. Both Ted and his son hit the ball on the green, and Trump hits his in the water. By the time they get to the hole, Trump is lining up the kid’s ball. Only now it’s his ball and the caddie has switched it. The kid’s like, “Daddy, that’s my ball.”

But Trump’s caddie goes, “No, this is the president’s ball; your ball went in the water.” Ted and his son look at each other confused, not sure if this is really happening. And Trump’s caddie says, “This is the president’s ball. I don’t know what to tell you.”

Trump makes that putt, wins one up, and declares himself the club champion.

[Elegiac]

How pathetic, petty and spoiled can Trump get? Well, the bar just keeps getting lowered...

https://www.vox.com/2019/5/10/185241...at-rick-reilly

That feel when your evil isn’t quite cartoonish enough, I guess?

If Trump were a movie villain I’d be telling the writers the script is wayyyy too on the nose.

[Edge-]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/10...up-conviction/

Nearly three years after foiling an audacious coup attempt, authorities in Montenegro on Thursday convicted 14 people—including two alleged Russian military intelligence agents in absentia—of participating in a plot to overthrow the government.

News of their jail sentences was widely lauded by Western governments, including a statement released Thursday from the U.S. State Department extolling the move as a “clear victory for the rule of law, laying bare Russia’s brazen attempt to undermine” Montenegro’s sovereignty.

But that U.S. statement went out by mistake, Foreign Policy has learned. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo opposed it, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with internal deliberations, who suggested it was because the secretary wanted to soften combative tones with Moscow ahead of his forthcoming visit to Russia.

“Since the thwarted Russian-backed coup attempt on Montenegro’s parliamentary election day in October 2016, Montenegro has taken important steps toward integrating with the Transatlantic family, most notably joining NATO in June 2017,” the statement said.

The statement was accidentally released on Thursday afternoon. Pompeo’s office directed the department to quash it, but the bureaucratic machinations were already set in motion. Shortly after it was released, it was quickly recalled and quietly taken down from the State Department website.

The minor blunder offers a glimpse into the precarious diplomatic line Pompeo must walk as he prepares to visit Russia next week to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. After the release last month of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections to tip the scales in now-President Donald Trump’s favor, both Trump and Pompeo have signaled they’re ready to kickstart a new phase in U.S.-Russia relations.

“We hope we can find places where we can have overlap in our interests,” Pompeo told ABC’s This Week in an interview on May 5. “I think it makes perfect sense that any place we can find where we have overlapping interests, we work along with the Russians.”

The State Department did not respond to request for comment.

Trump has worked to adopt a chummy personal rapport with Putin, despite the Russia-related scandals swirling over his White House. At the same time, his administration and Congress have adopted hard-line stances against Russia: tightening sanctions, boosting U.S. defense spending in Europe, shipping lethal weapons to Ukraine as it battles Russian-backed separatists in the east of its country, and supporting Montenegro’s NATO membership.

Pompeo has dismissed criticisms that the administration is not being tough enough on Russia amid showdowns with the former Cold War rival in Ukraine, Syria, and Venezuela. He sharply condemned Russia’s involvement in propping up Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s regime after the United States and more than 50 countries recognized opposition figure Juan Guaidó as the country’s legitimate president.

Trump had an hourlong call with Putin on May 3. The two broached the subject of the Mueller investigation and discussed Venezuela, Trump said afterward. “He is not looking at all to get involved in Venezuela, other than he’d like to see something positive happen for Venezuela,” he said of Putin, striking a conciliatory tone toward the Russian leader. Pompeo’s push not to rebuke Russia over its alleged role in the Montenegro coup plot falls in line with that tone.

What a bunch of fucking "cucks".

[Elegiac]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/10...up-conviction/

What a bunch of fucking "cucks".

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Actually, no. Ingsoc actually knew what the fuck they were doing.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4...-afghan-forces

FYI - Trump is literally taking money away from supporting US troops still in Afghanistan to fund his wall.

Are conservatives alright with putting US service members deployed abroad at rusk due to reduced funding in order to support "THE WALL" that protects us from...*checks reports* unarmed families that arrive tired, hungry, thirsty, and afraid?

And it's only funding a whopping 80 miles of wall.

[Togashii]

There's plenty of evidence to support Breitbart articles outside of their site. I have enough integrity not to post their shit here.

Sulla and integrity... fucking L.O.L. coming from someone who supports kiddie fuckera

[Edge-]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48231708

Trump's Q-anon folks got a California school fundraiser shut down. How? Because they're completely batshit insane and somehow interpreted a simple tweet from former FBI head Comey as a "false flag" indication specific to that fundraiser.

These people are completely fucking insane.

[Orbitus]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48231708

Trump's Q-anon folks got a California school fundraiser shut down. How? Because they're completely batshit insane and somehow interpreted a simple tweet from former FBI head Comey as a "false flag" indication specific to that fundraiser.

These people are completely fucking insane.

Why am I not surprised? We have some of those here as well, considering they think the Barr investigation into the start of the Mueller investigation is going to lead to arrests of Democrats like Obama, Hillary, and Comey, somehow.