WELL, ARE YOU BALL-LICKERS FINALLY GOING TO WAKE UP FROM WONDERLAND???

[andreisdaman]

If I post a chart of the stock market going back to 2007 until 2016 showing the economy was on the rise from 2008 to 2010 before the Republicans saved the day.. would you both acknowledge you were wrong? My experience on here tells me not a chance. You'll deflect or ignore. But the fact is, that statement is wrong.

They never admit being wrong about anything....they just stay stuck with the same old way of thinking which is usually inaccurate...they don't know how to incorporate new information

[chaos]

That was funny! I agree Bush gave Obama the opportunity to have a term where the economy improves... but unlike Trump, Obama's term (notice I'm not giving Obama the credit, just saying that while he was President, coincidence or not, the economy improved.) The housing crash that was set to happen as far back as Clinton who I understand put policies in place that allowed it to occur, made it easier for Obama to experience an upward trend. That trend continued until the day he left office and continues up.

Doesn't change the fact Thin Lizzy's statement is demonstrably false and your apparent agreement with it a symptom of some members of the rights inability to distinguish fact from fiction.    

It wasn't a false statement, the economy increasingly improved, arguably at a quicker rate after 2010 when repubs took over. Was it already on the rise from 2008-2010 isn't being disagreed with.

-Oversimplified argument. Comparing the economy (real estate crash) of 2008 to today's post Trump election economy explains why you'll never be a qualified economist.

Quit trying to sound smart, you only make the case for senior euthanasia.

[Dos Equis]

I love your attacks..it usually means I've backed you in a corner

Attacks.  That's mostly what you have in your small bag of tricks.  A thread will all caps.  Some incoherent babbling.  Insult anyone who disagrees with you.  You can do better than that.   

[illuminati]

Attacks.  That's mostly what you have in your small bag of tricks.  A thread will all caps.  Some incoherent babbling.  Insult anyone who disagrees with you.  You can do better than that.   

“Insult anyone who disagrees with you.  You can do better than that”

No he can’t.

[loco]

That was funny! I agree Bush gave Obama the opportunity to have a term where the economy improves... but unlike Trump, Obama's term (notice I'm not giving Obama the credit, just saying that while he was President, coincidence or not, the economy improved.) The housing crash that was set to happen as far back as Clinton who I understand put policies in place that allowed it to occur, made it easier for Obama to experience an upward trend. That trend continued until the day he left office and continues up.

Doesn't change the fact Thin Lizzy's statement is demonstrably false and your apparent agreement with it a symptom of some members of the rights inability to distinguish fact from fiction.    

That's accurate.

[Agnostic007]

That's accurate.

It's all accurate, thanks

[Dos Equis]

“Insult anyone who disagrees with you.  You can do better than that”

No he can’t.

I try and give everyone a chance to be better.  Except for a handful of irredeemable douchebags.   

[Coach is Back!]

The economy was going well with low unemployment when Obama was president...but you chose to ignore that and not acknowledge it

Do you really want to go there again....Krugman?

[andreisdaman]

Attacks.  That's mostly what you have in your small bag of tricks.  A thread will all caps.  Some incoherent babbling.  Insult anyone who disagrees with you.  You can do better than that.   

You're amazing.....you are the one doing the insulting...all I've done is point out your hypocrisy which you have yet to counter

[andreisdaman]

Do you really want to go there again....Krugman?

why not?...the facts are all on my side...if you choose to ignore that then fine

[andreisdaman]

The economy turned around in 2010 when Republicans took over the house.

and exactly what did they do to make the economy turn around???….WOW..the boldness of your untruthfulness is absolutely amazing

[polychronopolous]

The economy turned around in 2010 when Republicans took over the house.

For the record, I really wish you would post more on this sub forum.

Your posts really are top notch.

[loco]

It's all accurate, thanks

Maybe, maybe not.  The bolded text is the stuff I know for sure is accurate.  The rest I'm not so sure.

Question is, if Obama and the Democrats were doing so well then why did they lose so bad the following midterm elections?

[Agnostic007]

Maybe, maybe not.  The bolded text is the stuff I know for sure is accurate.  The rest I'm not so sure.

Question is, if Obama and the Democrats were doing so well then why did they lose so bad the following midterm elections?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/barack-obama-won-the-white-house-but-democrats-lost-the-country/

The number of congressional seats lost during his tenure is high but in line with what other two-term presidents have experienced. Where the party has ceded an extraordinary degree of its power is in state legislatures and governor’s mansions. If the blame for Democrats’ ebbing power fell squarely at Obama’s feet, the party’s losses in federal offices would likely be much more acute, matching the dramatic changes at the state level.

It matters, too, how the Democrats’ losses during Obama’s tenure are counted. Most analyses compare the number of seats Democrats held after the 2008 elections to those they held after 2016. But Obama’s 2008 election saw a surge of down-ballot Democratic wins, which makes the slide look that much more precipitous. If you compare the number of Democratic seats held after the 2006 midterms, prior to Obama’s election, with the number held after 2016, when he was off the ticket — as the Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein has suggested — the loss of state-level seats is closer to the norm.

Democrats saw a similar erosion of power after Clinton’s time in office, and by this accounting, Republican losses in the Senate and House during Bush’s tenure look far worse than Democratic losses during Obama’s.


And I don't recall saying Obama and the Democrats were doing so well.

[chaos]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/barack-obama-won-the-white-house-but-democrats-lost-the-country/

The number of congressional seats lost during his tenure is high but in line with what other two-term presidents have experienced. Where the party has ceded an extraordinary degree of its power is in state legislatures and governor’s mansions. If the blame for Democrats’ ebbing power fell squarely at Obama’s feet, the party’s losses in federal offices would likely be much more acute, matching the dramatic changes at the state level.

It matters, too, how the Democrats’ losses during Obama’s tenure are counted. Most analyses compare the number of seats Democrats held after the 2008 elections to those they held after 2016. But Obama’s 2008 election saw a surge of down-ballot Democratic wins, which makes the slide look that much more precipitous. If you compare the number of Democratic seats held after the 2006 midterms, prior to Obama’s election, with the number held after 2016, when he was off the ticket — as the Atlantic’s Ronald Brownstein has suggested — the loss of state-level seats is closer to the norm.

Democrats saw a similar erosion of power after Clinton’s time in office, and by this accounting, Republican losses in the Senate and House during Bush’s tenure look far worse than Democratic losses during Obama’s.


And I don't recall saying Obama and the Democrats were doing so well.

So according to that guy, if you manipulate and screw around with timing and numbers, it looks similar to other 2 term presidents? LOL

You did say the economy was doing well under Obama who was demoncrat which led into the current discussion about demoncratic seat losses during his tenure.

[Agnostic007]

So according to that guy, if you manipulate and screw around with timing and numbers, it looks similar to other 2 term presidents? LOL

You did say the economy was doing well under Obama who was demoncrat which led into the current discussion about demoncratic seat losses during his tenure.

I think you just reminded me why it's not worth giving any more answers than just the usual insult or deflection. You really aren't interested in learning anything new. What "the guy" said was that Obama had a surge of seats upon his election which was not the norm. So comparing his starting seats with the mid terms skews the results. If you used the norm or what he had prior to his election it IS normal and actually not as bad as Bush experienced. Really not that technical to understand.

[illuminati]

I think you just reminded me why it's not worth giving any more answers than just the usual insult or deflection. You really aren't interested in learning anything new. What "the guy" said was that Obama had a surge of seats upon his election which was not the norm. So comparing his starting seats with the mid terms skews the results. If you used the norm or what he had prior to his election it IS normal and actually not as bad as Bush experienced. Really not that technical to understand.

So is it correct then
That he did very well on election and gained a lot of seats? Correct?
Then mid term he & then he lost an awful lot of seats mid term? Correct?

Or have I got that wrong?

And No messing / comparing with other presidents pls.

[Agnostic007]

So is it correct then
That he did very well on election and gained a lot of seats? Correct?
Then mid term he & then he lost an awful lot of seats mid term? Correct?

Or have I got that wrong?

And No messing / comparing with other presidents pls.

It is true, I was asked why I thought that happened. I answered it

[chaos]

So is it correct then
That he did very well on election and gained a lot of seats? Correct?
Then mid term he & then he lost an awful lot of seats mid term? Correct?

Or have I got that wrong?

And No messing / comparing with other presidents pls.

Nobody is denying that's the way it happened, yet the guy that wrote that article tried manipulating the numbers before election/during/after to make it look like the demoncratic loss during obamas tenure was "normal". If someone cared enough they could just look at the straight actual numbers instead of searching for something that supports their fucked up political ideology.

[Yamcha]

LOL! New Reuters/Ipsos Poll: Trump job approval at 42% in post-Helsinki polling.

Previous Reuters/Ipsos Poll, taken pre-Helsinki: Trump job approval at 41%

LOL even more: New Rasmussen, post-Helsinki Poll: Trump at 45%

Exactly the same as pre-Helsinki.

Cue liberal/media exploding heads in 3...2...1...

[illuminati]

It is true, I was asked why I thought that happened. I answered it

Ahh so I was correct.
Thanks for answering.

So put simply he started off really well with all the seats gained
Then mid term did terribly poorly & lost even more than he gained.

If that is also correct , there’s no sweeting that bitter pill.



Personally I couldn’t stand The effeminate liberal black twat
I don’t think many if any world countries saw him as a Real Leader of the western world.

He got voted in because he was black & all the politically correct liberals & women & blacks
Voted for him - All caught up in the idealistic politically correct liberal mental illness.

Natural order will Return
Nature always wins.

[illuminati]

Nobody is denying that's the way it happened, yet the guy that wrote that article tried manipulating the numbers before election/during/after to make it look like the demoncratic loss during obamas tenure was "normal". If someone cared enough they could just look at the straight actual numbers instead of searching for something that supports their fucked up political ideology.

Yes.

My point was he did very well at the start
Then woeful in the middle.

I just wanted that clarified- without anything further added.

[chaos]

Personally I couldn’t stand The effeminate liberal black twat
I don’t think many if any world countries saw him as a Real Leader of the western world.

He got voted in because he was black & all the politically correct liberals & women & blacks
Voted for him - All caught up in the idealistic politically correct liberal mental illness.

Natural order will Return
Nature always wins.

Oh shit, some liberal heads here are going to explode when they see this.

[illuminati]

Oh shit, some liberal heads here are going to explode when they see this.

Be that as it may.

Truth Hurts Some People.

Let them take the cotton wool & bubble wrapping off
And go See Live Interact in The Real World.

Of course they won’t,
Because of their Idealistic Politically Correct Liberal Feminist Mental Illness Has Fcuked it up.
And They Couldn’t Cope with the reality.

[Agnostic007]

Ahh so I was correct.
Thanks for answering.

So put simply he started off really well with all the seats gained
Then mid term did terribly poorly & lost even more than he gained.

If that is also correct , there’s no sweeting that bitter pill.



Personally I couldn’t stand The effeminate liberal black twat
I don’t think many if any world countries saw him as a Real Leader of the western world.

He got voted in because he was black & all the politically correct liberals & women & blacks
Voted for him - All caught up in the idealistic politically correct liberal mental illness.

Natural order will Return
Nature always wins.

The right spin is that he lost an extraordinary amount of seats.. the truth seems to be that the original numbers were inflated from the norm and what happened wasn't unusual for a party with a President in the white house. He got in in my opinion, kind of how Trump did. People were so tired of the usual BS, Bush had done a mediocre at best job towards his last 3 years and the housing market and stocks were in shambles. Change was needed and McCain was not that change. Obama talked a good game but when it came down to it, other than UHC, he did nothing for the country other than not act like a total asshole tard