paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

How many American reporters have died since the start of Trump's regime? See, you're concocting a slick kind of lie that Trump is going to get American reporters killed. Well, if the tons of negative abuse heaped on Trump hasn't gotten him killed, I guess the reporters who dump it shouldn't worry.

Are you claiming that Trump has not lied or that all politicians lie. One of those statements is true, but no politician has lied to the extent Trump has.
Start with his early life and look at his great high school grades, his excellent performance at Wharton, his excellent tax returns. You can't because he hid them, he is not what he claims to be. It is the common thread in all of Trump's history. How did he get on the Forbes list? Who is John Barron? John Miller? David Dennison? Who's the liar?

The point of Trump liking Putin not having fake news is not that american reporters have been killed, it's that Trump finds Putin's approach acceptable and worth joking about.
You spin it into something else and find this acceptable. How dare they question the king, it's treasonous. The founders closely defined treason so that it was not the same as England, where if you spoke out against the king it was treason.
He was not elected King, he is the President of all the american people and took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He needs to start acting like it.

[Sea Dangles]

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Clearly the greatest president of our lifetime.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m an Ike man, but that's before
my lifetime. If you measure “greatness” as the ability to inspire true, genuine madness in your political adversaries, no one comes close.

Paul Krugman said the economy would not survive a trump presidency. the dow will likely break records today. and msnbc still pays paul krugman to come
and tell us what he thinks.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I’m an Ike man, but that's before
my lifetime. If you measure “greatness” as true genuine madness, no one comes close.

Paul Krugman said the economy would not survive a trump presidency. the dow will likely break records today. and msnbc still pays paul krugman to come
and tell us what he thinks.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fixed it for you, and it ain't over yet...... Give him time to perform true to form, he has a history. But we are not allowed to see it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Fixed it for you, and it ain't over yet...... Give him time to perform true to form, he has a history. But we are not allowed to see it.

yes you did, that was very amusing, please stop my stomach hurts from laughing so hard.

he does have a history. so you’re suggesting that this market run up is some kind of shell game, a con? all those people aren’t really back to work? do you have ANY evidence whatsoever, to support that?

we’re due for a correction, sure, that’s coming. that doesn’t mean this isn’t real.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Maybe a few numbers would help you understand the magnitude of the Trump lies, but of course it was easy for Obama.
Dated May 13th 2019 by Eric Black in the MinnPost

Under which president did the stock market rise more during the first 27 months of his presidency? Donald J. Trump or Barack H. Obama? Under which did the unemployment rate decline more? How about GDP growth per president?

If it wasn’t for obnoxious braggadocio of the current incumbent — his incessant pitiful compulsion to exaggerate his own accomplishments and disparage those of all others (but most especially those of his immediate predecessor) — I would say the idea that economic indices reflect the wisdom and skill of the incumbent president is dumb. But if those are measures the self-glorifying Trump wants to use, let’s go there and review some actual, you know, facts.

On January 20, 2017, the day Trump took office, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 19,827. It’s had a good run during his first two plus years, and it closed Friday at 25,942. That’s an impressive gain of 30.8 percent, but let’s not be stingy. Let’s call it 31 percent. (Note: as of publication of this story Monday morning, the Dow was down more than 600 points, or 2.4 percent.)

Some find Trump’s policies despicable, racist, even (or perhaps especially) planet-threatening. But some argue that the good economy during Trump’s first two-plus years is a powerful offset against those factors. The movement of the Dow is not the best measure of economic performance, nor certainly of the overall cost/benefit analysis of his presidency. GDP growth would be better and, in terms of impact on ordinary Americans, unemployment would be better. And those have done well under Trump, too. But the Dow is very specific and often celebrated by Trump praisers.


But here’s the thing. During the same period of Barack Obama’s first term, from Inauguration Day 2009, until the close on May 12, 2011, the closest equivalent date during his presidency, the Dow rose from 8,280 to 12,696, a growth of 65 percent.
The stock market is not the best measure of economic performance, of course, and I’m not going to go through all the economic measures. And it would be hard to statistically measure the staggering (but non-monetary) decline in U.S. leadership in the world under Trump. How would one quantify the impact of the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to combat global warming? Or from the U.S.-brokered deal to head off an Iranian nuclear weapon, which has now caused Iran to announce it will no longer abide by some of the terms of the deal, which makes Mideast war and even life-on-Earth-ending nuclear war a bit more likely?

Those things can’t be measured statistically. Maybe they’ll make America great again, although I have my doubts.

But back to things that can be measured. As statistics go, a rising stock market primarily benefits a relatively small, wealthy investor class (although certainly some benefits trickle down to the economy in general). So let’s do another one more that more directly affects average Americans, especially those who really need to work for a living, namely the unemployment rate.

The administration, among others, has spent recent days celebrating the decline of the unemployment to 3.6 percent, its lowest level since 1969. Congratulations to all those who wanted work and found it thanks to the drop in that rate, and one-hand-clapping to Donald Trump who, of course, claims this as a great personal accomplishment, which further demonstrates his success especially compared to his despised predecessor.

Given all that, let’s take a look at comparison unemployment data across the Obama and Trump years in this chart, which assigns an overall unemployment rate to each calendar year. Obama inherited a plummeting economy and the worst recession in decades from his predecessor, George W. Bush.

In 2009, the first year of Obama’s presidency, unemployment hit 9.9 percent, its highest level since the Great Depression. But starting in 2010, the unemployment rate fell for eight straight years, namely the eight years when the economy was essentially under Obama policy. By 2016, Obama’s last year in office, unemployment measured 4.7 percent (down from 9.9 percent.) In 2017, the first year of Trump’s term (but before many of his policies were implemented) it fell to 4.1 percent.

In 2018, with the Trump tax cuts and other magical elements of Trumpism on the books, it fell again to 3.9 percent. So, depending on how you count those swing years, unemployment fell by a 5.8 percentage points under Obama policy over eight years and 0.2 percentage points under Trump’s policies through the end of 2018.

Just a quick look at GDP growth, for which I’ll rely on this table from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and this graph from Statista. Between 2009 and 2017, the eight years during which Obama’s policies should be blamed or credited, GDP per capita went up every year, with a total gain of $5,903. I would call that decent, maybe not great. Solid, steady but not astonishing growth of a little above or a little below two percent year with a best year of 2.9 percent in 2015 and an average of about 2.5 percent a year. (It’s “real” GDP so inflation is taken out.)


For 2018, the first full year under Trump’s policies, Statista says GDP per capita grew 2.9 percent, equal to Obama’s best year, 2015. Although it’s a per capita number, it says nothing about the distribution of the gains, and one has one’s suspicions on that score. But, for today, we’ll leave it at this: The first year under Trump showed good overall growth. (If you look at the whole Statista table, you’ll see that the golden age of recent GDP growth was under Bill Clinton.)
Among the various aspects of Trump’s moral midgetry is intellectual dishonesty. Also immodesty. But intellectual dishonesty is a quality I particularly disdain. Sure, make your argument, but don’t deny the contrary evidence. To me, that borders on lying.

For example, I would acknowledge that Obama inherited an economy and a stock market and a labor market that had crashed under his predecessor, while Trump inherited one that had thrived under his predecessor, the much-belittled-by-Trump Obama.

That might undermine the power of Obama absolutely besting, crushing, owning Trump as measured by two out of three important benchmark economic numbers during Obama’s presidency compared to Trump’s presidency so far.

I’ll consider the offsetting factor above if and when Trump acknowledges that he inherited a nation that was thriving, at relative peace (and the leader of several of the world’s most admirable and necessary multilateral agreements), and not one that was a hell-scape of carnage, dysfunction incompetence and decline he portrayed during his campaign and inaugural address.

But being intellectually honest in fairness to Donald Trump seems like unilateral disarmament. Let him try it for a while, then we’ll see. But don’t hold your breath.

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF. Has never posted an original or even honest thought in this forum,why would he acknowledge such?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

PeteF. Has never posted an original or even honest thought in this forum,why would he acknowledge such?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Pete, I give obama credit all
the time
for helping the economy, so if you think that was a gotcha moment, think again.

with manufacturing and gdp growth, trump has done, what obama specifically said, could
not be done.

i give obama high marks for
handling the economy. i’m consistent and fair. are you as fair? can you give trump high marks for handling the economy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist said.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s
chief economist said.

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He trademarked "snowflake"

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, I give obama credit all
the time
for helping the economy, so if you think that was a gotcha moment, think again.

with manufacturing and gdp growth, trump has done, what obama specifically said, could
not be done.

i give obama high marks for
handling the economy. i’m consistent and fair. are you as fair? can you give trump high marks for handling the economy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Have you?

Serious question
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

History will be the judge
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.

that wasn’t partisan at all, nope.

regular folks aren’t benefitting? blacks who are now employed? i thought people on the left claimed to care about that? you only celebrate good news for blacks, when it’s delivered by a democrat, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

So far by manipulation of the tax code and blindly killing regulation Trump has achieved some small gains in the existing markets, that have largely benefited wealthy Americans. He has increased the national debt and because his projected growth likely doesn't occur will make it substantially worse than projected currently.

Our infrastructure is currently falling further and further behind our competitors and all Trump has done is have a couple of Infrastructure weeks and invented a plan where infrastructure would be farmed out to for profit firms. Just another transfer of wealth from most americans to those who own stocks, largely the most wealthy people in the US. Infrastructure is a worthwhile investment for Americans as a group and we have done it in the past. Thank Eisenhower for that.

His disruption of global trade and historic alliances will have an impact that will play out for many years. I don't think it will be positive.

His dilettante treatment of foreign policy is scary, it is a long term commitment that has been carried out over many years and now is questioned by our allies, much to our adversaries glee. Just taking a meeting is not diplomacy. Don't get me started on Ivanka, Jared and take your kid to work day.

As I've said before Trump already gives himself far more credit than he deserves.

When he acknowledges that, I'll gladly give him the little credit he is due.

PeteF. likes to mock and hypothesize and resents Donald for doing the same. Interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

History will be the judge
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lol.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

PeteF. likes to mock and hypothesize and resents Donald for doing the same. Interesting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he also claims
trump resorted to gimmicks to helping the economy, while
adding to the debt. Yet he gives obama
high marks, despite the fact that all obama did ( which worked, by the way) was borrow money to pump
into he economy through quantitative easing, which also added to the debt.

Brilliant when Obama did it, bad when Trump does it.

TDS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

that wasn’t partisan at all, nope.

regular folks aren’t benefitting? blacks who are now employed? i thought people on the left claimed to care about that? you only celebrate good news for blacks, when it’s delivered by a democrat, I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buy shoes or an appliance lately? And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money.

We don’t get to set a very low bar for economic success for black workers and then applaud ourselves when we reach it.
Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

"Buy shoes or an appliance lately?"

Both, actually. So?

"And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money."

If that's true, inflation would be increasing. You appear to be the first person to have discovered it. Either that, or you are desperately grasping at straws...

"Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency? "

In other words, Obama gets credit for decreasing black unemployment, but Trump doesn't. When black unemployment drops under Obama, that's great. When it drops under Trump, all that matters is the gap between white and black unemployment.

You cannot keep your goalposts still, for two consecutive seconds. All you're doing, is shifting the goalposts.

"Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?"

I have said many times that it's changing, it's increasing. I can't answer any more directly than that, can I? Here are 2 follow-up questions...

(1) Why should I give a sh*t? As I said, if Oprah earns another billion this year, how does that hurt my family, of your family, or anyone else? Please be specific...

(2) how would you prevent it? Would you pass a law, saying that once your net worth reaches a certain amount, that you are no longer allowed to work or invest? How else could you stop it?

"Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?"

I don't think it's overly-consequential, not as long as we have the constitution and courts who follow it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Buy shoes or an appliance lately?"

Both, actually. So?

Same price as a few years ago?

"And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money."

If that's true, inflation would be increasing. You appear to be the first person to have discovered it. Either that, or you are desperately grasping at straws...

Take fuel out of the equation

"Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency? "

In other words, Obama gets credit for decreasing black unemployment, but Trump doesn't. When black unemployment drops under Obama, that's great. When it drops under Trump, all that matters is the gap between white and black unemployment.

You cannot keep your goalposts still, for two consecutive seconds. All you're doing, is shifting the goalposts.

You're the one who is claiming that was a goalpost and Trump should get credit for it, but then again black unemployment
is up more than a percent since last November. Does he take or get credit for that?

"Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?"

I have said many times that it's changing, it's increasing. I can't answer any more directly than that, can I? Here are 2 follow-up questions...

(1) Why should I give a sh*t? As I said, if Oprah earns another billion this year, how does that hurt my family, of your family, or anyone else? Please be specific... Sooner or later you will proudly be a Morlock

(2) how would you prevent it? Would you pass a law, saying that once your net worth reaches a certain amount, that you are no longer allowed to work or invest? How else could you stop it?
There are many ways to make sure that wealth is not redistributed to the wealthiest segment of society, start with Congress

"Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?"

I don't think it's overly-consequential, not as long as we have the constitution and courts who follow it.

For the past 50 years the government has enabled the concentration of capital thru laws and regulations.

[Pete F.]

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

well that’s good
enough for me.

pete, if i post an article
written by someone who hated obama, would that convince you that obama was bad?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just for Jim
Written by a "black" person

The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why.

Don't try to argue this. Trump has been in office for 378 days now, long enough for him to be blamed for everything in America that isn't what it should be. Walmart announced Jan. 12 that it's closing 63 Sam's Club locations across the United States, which BusinessInsider.com says would impact about 11,000 jobs. That's Trump's fault, too.

Why wouldn't it be?

The Sam's Club announcement came the day after Carrier, the A.C. and furnace manufacturer, announced 215 more layoffs. The company had announced 340 layoffs in July 2017. Carrier's announcements were even more significant than Walmart's because Trump made a big to-do about saving employees' jobs at Carrier even before he was sworn into office.

"We all voted for him," 44-year-old Renee Elliott told NBC News. "We just thought he was going to protect our jobs. It sounded really good. And then, boom."

Coal workers also supported Trump because he made them believe that he was going to save their jobs. But the gain of 500 jobs in that industry made in 2017 are expected to be followed by the loss of 370 jobs this year at a mine owned by Mepco LLC. The mine near the border of Pennsylvania and West Virginia is being shut down, which the chairman of Greene County, Pa., county commissioners says is worse than a mere layoff. Shutting down a mine, Blair Zimmerman said, is "as bad as it gets."

Zimmerman, a former miner himself, said coal miners voted for Trump "because he said he'd bring back coal. It's not happening. There's not been any significant change in the industry since he's taken over."

We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive. Like that 6.8 percent black unemployment rate. He has boasted that the rate is as low as it is - if you consider it low - "because of my policies." So if his policies are responsible for black unemployment rate being the lowest on record, then those same policies are responsible for it being twice as high as white people's, am I right?

If you're going to take credit for Walmart boosting the starting pay for its hourly employees to $11 per hour, then you're going to take the blame for the same company shutting 63 Sam's Clubs, right?

The black unemployment rate was 12.7 percent the month President Barack Obama took office, and it was 7.8 percent the month he left, but in 2016, candidate Trump said, "We have an African-American president and what he's done for African-Americans is a shame."

As Trump sees it, he's done great things for black people, while Obama did nothing.

Black people say otherwise. In January 2017, the last month of Obama's second term, a Gallup poll showed that 92 percent of black people approved of him. According to a January 2018 Gallup poll, the percentage of black people who liked Trump was at 6.

Jarvis DeBerry is deputy opinions editor for NOLA.COM | The Times-Picayune.

"The unemployment rate among black Americans is at 6.8 percent, which means it's twice that of white people's. President Donald Trump is the reason why."

But Obama wasn't the reason why black unemployment was higher than white unemployment, from 2009-2016?

It's Trump's fault that young black men make babies and don't help raise them?

"Don't try to argue this"

I don't have to, it's absurd on its face.

"We know it's appropriate to blame Trump for all of the problems in America because he gleefully takes credit for everything that he thinks is positive."

I don't give him credit for everything good. I don't know anyone who does. I know lots of people, Pete included, who can't ever say anything good about him. That's the extremism I see, except for Sean Hannity I guess.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's Trump's fault that young black men make babies and don't help raise them?

"Don't try to argue this"

I don't have to, it's absurd on its face.

I'll let you carry on this argument all by yourself.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I'll let you carry on this argument all by yourself.

pete, every post i’ve seen from you here, can be summarized thusly...

Orange Man Bad.

we get it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device