By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trumps Approval Outpace Reagan, Clinton and Carter

 

Do you Approve of President Trump?

Yes 42 39.62%
 
No 59 55.66%
 
In the middle. 5 4.72%
 
Total:106
Megiddo said:
You stated, and i quote "trump has done more for black people than obama, going by the employment numbers... that in itself says a lot about the situation"

Now do you fully believe that improving unemployment by .8% is better than 3-5%? Because that's what the above sentence says.

Written in long form, "Going by employment numbers, from the start of Trump's term unemployment has dropped from 4.7% to 3.9% which is a .8% drop".

Are you telling me that you not only have an issue with math but also English?

"trump has done more for black people than obama, going by the employment numbers... that in itself says a lot about the situation"

and he has, more black people are employed now than under obama

 

"Now do you fully believe that improving unemployment by .8% is better than 3-5%? Because that's what the above sentence says. "

no it means that more black people are employed now than under obama, again you're attributing something to my post that i did not say

 

even if you wanted to interpret what i said in that way if you were actually using mathematics you'd compare the ir terms over the same period of time ~1.5 years but you won't because you think its more reasonable to compare ~1.5 to ~8 and i'm the mathematically challenged one apparently lmao

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 15 August 2018

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
Aeolus451 said:

3. Actually, notable economists gave the credit to Trump.

Please, cite one.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-optimism-tax-cut-bonuses-trump-credit/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25918/economists-reveal-which-president-they-credit-us-ryan-saavedra

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

So are you gonna pull a "but that's....." ?



Your media and mainstream media are controlled by a bunch of hysterical and paranoid people, or perhaps they using Trump to promote fear so they can gain more views on social media and forums.

Just chilled out guys , Trump will not create Armagedon. Trump is just a normal human being, that is not perfect, he maybe bad at something but at the same times he can be good.





Aeolus451 said:
SpokenTruth said:

Please, cite one.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-optimism-tax-cut-bonuses-trump-credit/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25918/economists-reveal-which-president-they-credit-us-ryan-saavedra

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

So are you gonna pull a "but that's....." ?

I see a pay-walled WSJ article and then articles talking about the pay-walled WSJ article. Unless you have the report being quoted in the WSJ in full so I can read it, this doesn't help your case a bit.



Still waiting for him to establish a 35% tariff on all imported goods. And he still hasn't taken Tim Cook and Eric Schmidt to a Cia black site for being terrorist sympathizers.



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Around the Network
Megiddo said:

You stated, and I quote, "trump has done more for black people than obama, going by the employment numbers... that in itself says a lot about the situation"

Now do you fully believe that improving unemployment by .8% is better than 3-5%? Because that's what the above sentence says.

Written in long form, "Going by employment numbers, from the start of Trump's term unemployment has dropped from 4.7% to 3.9% which is a .8% drop. This is more than what happened to unemployment under Obama which went from 7.8% to 4.8% from the start of his term to when he left office".

Are you telling me that you not only have an issue with math but also English? Because that's what you're stating when you say that Trump has done more than Obama in terms of the unemployment rate.

I feel the urge to comment here. It almost seems like your goal is to just degrade someone than to actually prove a point. Obviously he knows that the number 0.8 is less than 3.0, and obviously you know that he knows that. I can understand if you overreacted, but do you really want other people reading your posts and seeing you insult someone's intelligence? 



Megiddo said:
o_O.Q said:

"President Obama did far more to improve unemployment than President Trump has done."

good, that's a claim... what are you basing that on? because its not the employment statistics

 

"Don't you want to live in reality instead of make believe?"

i'm living in make believe by basing my conclusions on actual statistics? really?

When Obama took office the unemployment was 7.8%. It peaked at 10%. When Obama left office unemployment was at 4.8%. That means Obama cut employment by 3% from when he took office and by over 5% from the peak of the financial crisis he inherited.

When Trump took office the unemployment was 4.7%. It is now 3.9%. That means Trump has cut unemployment by .8%, far less than president Obama.

I know math is hard, but man, you gotta make that effort! Otherwise you just look like an idiot.

Going by your logic, if Trump brought unemployment to 0%, Obama would still be better cause Trump only reduced it by 4.7% while Obama did it by more than 5%.



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

 

i never said that, what i said specifically is that more black people are employed now than when obama was president... that was my comparison

And more black people are employed now than when Bush was president.....
And more black people are employed now than when Clinton was president.....
And more black people are employed now than when Kennedy was president.....
And more black people are employed now than when Lincoln was president......
And more black people are employed now than when Washington was president.....

I hope you understand the fallacy in your argument.

we are talking about roughly the same era in history obviously 



Megiddo said:
Aeolus451 said:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/economic-optimism-tax-cut-bonuses-trump-credit/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893

https://www.dailywire.com/news/25918/economists-reveal-which-president-they-credit-us-ryan-saavedra

http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/368904-economists-agree-trump-not-obama-gets-credit-for-economy

So are you gonna pull a "but that's....." ?

I see a pay-walled WSJ article and then articles talking about the pay-walled WSJ article. Unless you have the report being quoted in the WSJ in full so I can read it, this doesn't help your case a bit.

That's so intellectually honest of ya. How's your cognitive dissonance going for ya?



RaptorChrist said:
Megiddo said:

You stated, and I quote, "trump has done more for black people than obama, going by the employment numbers... that in itself says a lot about the situation"

Now do you fully believe that improving unemployment by .8% is better than 3-5%? Because that's what the above sentence says.

Written in long form, "Going by employment numbers, from the start of Trump's term unemployment has dropped from 4.7% to 3.9% which is a .8% drop. This is more than what happened to unemployment under Obama which went from 7.8% to 4.8% from the start of his term to when he left office".

Are you telling me that you not only have an issue with math but also English? Because that's what you're stating when you say that Trump has done more than Obama in terms of the unemployment rate.

I feel the urge to comment here. It almost seems like your goal is to just degrade someone than to actually prove a point. Obviously he knows that the number 0.8 is less than 3.0, and obviously you know that he knows that. I can understand if you overreacted, but do you really want other people reading your posts and seeing you insult someone's intelligence? 

When people say stupid things they deserve to be called out for saying stupid things. I have no issue insulting intelligence if what being presented as an argument is not intelligent.  The original post was bad. I gave the user plenty of lee-way to back out of the original post. The user kept digging in so I had to piece by piece prove why it was a fallacious argument.