Cancel Order for New Airforce One!?

[jwocky]

Well, I don't take the time to look through all the lists on the websites, D-ECHO sent. Just to see, what the tendency is, "The Star" and the first few in their image (yes, it's an image, makes it hard to quote)

Falsely said of Canadian health care: "It's a disaster in terms of cost"
A short look at Wikipedia confirms: Healthcare spending in Canada (in 1997 dollars) has increased each year between 1975 and 2009, from $39.7 billion to $137.3 billion, or per capita spending from $1,715 to $4089. In 2013 the total reached $211 billion, averaging $5,988 per person. So, if that is not a disaster in terms of cost what is?

Falsely described his 2010 views on Obamacare: "And you remember, from before it was app. The plan is no good. The concept is no good".
Well actually, someone was wrong because that is not from 2010 but from a Hannity interview in late 2009.

Falsely said "Hillary Clinton gave them 20 per cent of our uranium. Gave Russia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0 Pheew, and that from the NY Times which is normally quite on the left. Oh, and we know in the meantime, Rosatom was not the only one profiting from this deal, the Russian Navy just commissioned their second Bosei submarine.

Soooo, I look at the first three of only one of the sites D-ECHGO posted and see. actually, it was the site he linked, that lied three out of three.

And look at Lydiot: I noticed, he messed up his math but was not sure whether he did it intentionally or was just inept. Since he yet didn't follow up on his "math", I still can't say.
About what was the tendency: Well, it was, if you consider economical indicators relevant to the population, not that bad.
Unemployment for example:
2000 4.0 (inherited from an advantagous global economic climate before the recession hit Europe first)
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0 (that year, the counting system was changed to show clearer also underemployment, so the number had to be high)
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 (that was when it turned out, there were billions and billions of unpayable loans out there, Tim Geithner and the Dems in charge of Fanny & Freddy had sold under wrongful pretensions to banks. Tim Geithner became for his scam later a job in Obama's administration)

2009 9.3 after Obama's first year
2010 9.6 after Obama's second year, then the Deomcarats lost the House and got a bit reigned in
2011 8.9 not reigned in enough
2012 8.1
2013 7.4 After changing the counting methods again to count out underemplyoment, the numbers looked so much better
2014 6.2
2015 for that year we have only month by month data yet. Looks like a 4.9. Which is in part because the labor force decreased, the big numbers of Baby Boomers retiring are showing now.

Sooo, it appears, that Obama's adminsitration never never, not even in their best year, was better than Bush's worst year. Maybe, if they spin the 2015 number enough, they can make it.In terms of tendency, unemployment at the 2nd term of Bush's Presidency was positive (as in less unemployment) till the Fanny&Freddy bubble broke.

Median income:

2000 $57,790
2001 $56,531
2002 $55,871
2003 $55,829
2004 $55,628
2005 $56,224
2006 $56,663
2007 $57,423
2008 $55,376
2009 $54,988
2010 $53,568
2011 $52,751
2012 $52,666
2013 $52,850
2014 $53,718
2015 $56,516

Of course, it is about the same picture. The median income is only in 2015, with the outlook of change, recovering back to Bush levels. But it is of course only half the truth. The other half is, that many households were forced to buy Obamacare with $10,000 co-pay/year (which renders them useless in case of a crisis unless you have $10,000 extra around). The prices of many items, bread, milk, energy, are higher than they ever were (and, due to the recession a lot of them climbed already before the recession and in part also due to natural disasters (for example the drought in California).

Soooo, as Lydiot would say, I make unproven claims (other people call that "numbers from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics". According to the numbers published by the Obama administration, the Obama administration has produced the highest unemployment since 1929 but bounced back when the economy recovered despite his over-regulation attempts. The Obama administration has also produced the lowest median income since 1972 if you calculate buying power in. The only thing, the Obama administration increased was debt. At the end of the Bush administraion, the US had roughly $9.85 trillion debt. Now we are at $20 trillion and hope Obama doesn't make it to 21 before he moves out of the White House.

And to speak about another subject because I know "Bush made war" will come up now ... you people are so predicatble ...
Bush started two wars, both with the votes of Democrats and Republicans because he actually asked the Congress.
Obama not only created the vacuum in which ISIS thrived (one war we are still leading), he also sent instructors to Syria without vetting those groups they supported. So he involved us there. His Libya campaign was actually high treason because the President has not the right to go to war without asking the Congress. He can only order immediate measures in case of an attack. Libya didn't attack the USA or any US installation at the time. And in the other war, he actually inherited, Afghanistan, the casualties went up to new records under his "leadership". Obama's hesitant attitude has also emboldened Russia in Syria and in Ukraine, China in the South-China--Sea and of course, North Korea. The Iran deal has given Tehran some billions more to spend on their fifth column aka Hezbollah in Syria and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt has helped to start there a brutal terror war. So, realistically, his track record is a lot worse.

[LesterBoffo]

To me a discussion is on a subject, not a complete personality. You put arguments forward on the subject to get a better understanding of each others position on that subject. By saying "Oh, you just say that because you are extreme left (or extreme right)", you will never understand someones position on the subject discussed.

Categorizing in left and right has it's own difficulties. Many people have standpoints on some subjects you may call left, and on others you may call right. Most people are not fully on one side or the other. I know very conservative people who defend social security. They may have different arguments for defending it than a more left oriented person, but the result is the same: they agree on defending social security. Calling the conservative person a "leftie" for this, does not help in understanding this person at all.

So a world view in which you see all the people fully on the left, or fully on the right is incorrect. It is more like that most people hover around the center, having some left and some right standpoints on different subjects. If i look at the standpoints i take on different subjects, i should be somewhat between 50/50 and 75/25 left/right.

I enjoy it when good arguments *on the subject* are going back and forth in a discussion. But i get disinterested when it becomes unrealistic framing of entire characters, calling each other leftie and rightie.

Kind regards, Vincent

Again I agree with you. The problem is as I pointed out earlier that politics and political discourse in the US is just a big joke. People are told from early on that there's left and there's right, conservative and liberal, capitalist or socialist, and that that's it. Nothing else. So their worldview mirrors that. In fact, so does society in general, with buyers and sellers and plaintiffs and defendants etc, always a two-sided situation in which negotiation decides who has the strongest leverage and this takes the largest share of whatever gain there is to be had.

That's the US for the most part.

The problem also is we( Americans..) seem to also think our Left and Right divide is the same in other countries with similar political structures. My leftist politics is probably Center Right to someone like Vincent's Netherlands and it's various colors of left and right.

You can't base our divide like saying that the stupid liberals in Spain are just the same as the stupid liberals US. although I see it everyday in other forums, when some Rightist echo chamber repeater spouts off with his latest Alex Jones jewel in an international forum. They often times think they're being clever but end up looking like the rear end of a horse to everyone, except themselves.

[Lydiot]

The problem also is we( Americans..) seem to also think our Left and Right divide is the same in other countries with similar political structures. My leftist politics is probably Center Right to someone like Vincent's Netherlands and it's various colors of left and right.

You can't base our divide like saying that the stupid liberals in Spain are just the same as the stupid liberals US. although I see it everyday in other forums, when some Rightist echo chamber repeater spouts off with his latest Alex Jones jewel in an international forum. They often times think they're being clever but end up looking like the rear end of a horse to everyone, except themselves.

Well, I hate to say it, but a lot of people here in the US are horribly uneducated on political systems, so I obviously agree with you wholeheartedly. I think it serves a great purpose though, because if people on the far left in the US are called radicals, and the actual far left in the rest of the world aren't even on that US scale, then the discussion in the US by definition will ignore an actually fairly wide range of political thought. And of course, everyone trending in the center on the US scale benefits from that lack of discussion.

Kind'a tragic if you ask me.

[Lydiot]

Well, I don't take the time to look through all the lists on the websites, D-ECHO sent.

Trump On Libya:

https://youtu.be/_9W0Xy0zQH0?t=1m27s

Trump On Iraq:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmADpnluk50
https://youtu.be/2OU_Vrb_QXo?t=1m41s

Trump On China and Global Warming:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... eac2557875

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 85?lang=en



You're welcome.

And look at Lydiot: I noticed, he messed up his math but was not sure whether he did it intentionally or was just inept. Since he yet didn't follow up on his "math", I still can't say.
About what was the tendency: Well, it was, if you consider economical indicators relevant to the population, not that bad.
Unemployment for example:
2000 4.0 (inherited from an advantagous global economic climate before the recession hit Europe first)
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0 (that year, the counting system was changed to show clearer also underemployment, so the number had to be high)
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8 (that was when it turned out, there were billions and billions of unpayable loans out there, Tim Geithner and the Dems in charge of Fanny & Freddy had sold under wrongful pretensions to banks. Tim Geithner became for his scam later a job in Obama's administration)

2009 9.3 after Obama's first year
2010 9.6 after Obama's second year, then the Deomcarats lost the House and got a bit reigned in
2011 8.9 not reigned in enough
2012 8.1
2013 7.4 After changing the counting methods again to count out underemplyoment, the numbers looked so much better
2014 6.2
2015 for that year we have only month by month data yet. Looks like a 4.9. Which is in part because the labor force decreased, the big numbers of Baby Boomers retiring are showing now.

Sooo, it appears, that Obama's administration never never, not even in their best year, was better than Bush's worst year.

"Tendency". You correct me on the use of the word derivative and want to use the word "tendency" instead, yet you move on to say Obama's numbers were never better than Bush's, but you're looking not at the tendency but instead at just the unemployment rate!!!

Just look at the numbers you posted! During Bush's term you have at first a drop in the rate, which then bottoms out around 2006, and then unemployment goes up BEFORE Obama takes office. The tendency just looking at the numbers CLEARLY shows how unemployment starts to get worse during Bush's presidency.

And conversely, you can see how it peaked during Obama's second year, and then the tendency is a decrease in unemployment! It's in the numbers you picked yourself!!!

Here's a graph for you - just look at where the "line is heading".... I mean... this isn't rocket science dude...

Median income:

2000 $57,790
2001 $56,531
2002 $55,871
2003 $55,829
2004 $55,628
2005 $56,224
2006 $56,663
2007 $57,423
2008 $55,376
2009 $54,988
2010 $53,568
2011 $52,751
2012 $52,666
2013 $52,850
2014 $53,718
2015 $56,516

Of course, it is about the same picture.

That's correct. The tendency or trend was lower median income beginning in 2007. It didn't start with Obama. Instead, during Obama's term, the tendency changed and now it points upwards - according to your numbers.

BUT YOU WERE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT DEBT, NOT MEDIAN INCOME OR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE!

Did you already forget that was what you were talking about???

Soooo, as Lydiot would say, I make unproven claims (other people call that "numbers from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics".

The question was debt. Please focus.

According to the numbers published by the Obama administration, the Obama administration has produced the highest unemployment since 1929 but bounced back when the economy recovered despite his over-regulation attempts. The Obama administration has also produced the lowest median income since 1972 if you calculate buying power in. The only thing, the Obama administration increased was debt. At the end of the Bush administraion, the US had roughly $9.85 trillion debt. Now we are at $20 trillion and hope Obama doesn't make it to 21 before he moves out of the White House.

Finally you're back to what you were talking about. And the question now is if you can look at the tendency of debt and see if it was already increasing at a faster rate during Bush's term and what happened during Obama's. I wonder what we find if we look.... You'll probably pull numbers for something unrelated though, and then look at absolute values rather than the derivative or trend.

[LesterBoffo]

The US/Russian Uranium mine 'deal JWocky posted a link to is an Op-Ed, and doesn't present the whole picture.

Here's a better link. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.eb9f2013c03b

[IAHM-COL]

Thanks for making ATC great again!

That was fun

[jwocky]

Well, tendency then:

So, you try to construct a tendency by using the last year only ... the one when the real estate market crashed due to the unsustainable loans, Tim Geithner had thrown on the market under wrong pretenses. So, yes, there is one tendency for you: Criminal behavior of the Democrats and never an investigation!

And yes, here is another mathematical hint for you: Since Bush had, the years with the least unemployed since the late 1940s, of course, you can always "construct" a tendency from there and it will be always not as good ... because it's almost but not completely record.
Obame managed to almost double unemployment. Of course, as it is in socialistic thinking, the individual is wort nothing, so you don't care about millions who lost everything. As long as your sacrosanct leader looks good, all is good for you. That seems to be another hallmark of all brands of socialists ... person cult!

[Lydiot]

Well, tendency then:

So, you try to construct a tendency by using the last year only ... the one when the real estate market crashed due to the unsustainable loans, Tim Geithner had thrown on the market under wrong pretenses. So, yes, there is one tendency for you: Criminal behavior of the Democrats and never an investigation!

Hmmm... So first Obama is guilty of the debt, then when we can clearly see a large amount of it is due to the financial crisis he's still somehow guilty despite that happening before because of Geitner? In what way did Geithner create or endorse these loans, and why is this an issue for Democrats, and in turn Obama? The NY Fed is a private bank, not a government entity, and the Board Of Governors that appointed him to NY were chosen by previous presidents, not Obama.

And yes, here is another mathematical hint for you: Since Bush had, the years with the least unemployed since the late 1940s, of course, you can always "construct" a tendency from there and it will be always not as good ... because it's almost but not completely record.

You're right, AS I SAID, there were several parameters that looked good from a tendency standpoint during Bush's term. But that all changed, didn't it?

Obame managed to almost double unemployment.

Oh, but we were doing so well!.... What happened? Unemployment rising wasn't something Obama created, it was the result of the financial crisis of 2008 which happened during Bush's term and which we can also see in the tendency of the numbers we've already listed.

Of course, as it is in socialistic thinking, the individual is wort nothing, so you don't care about millions who lost everything. As long as your sacrosanct leader looks good, all is good for you. That seems to be another hallmark of all brands of socialists ... person cult!

Yeah, none of that with Trump supporters!

[jwocky]

You remember, the Republicans had primaries? The Democrats let run Bernie Sanders as alibi but made their decision on brass-level. Shows how much you count to your parts ... nothing ... but you are a useful pet for them to promote their hate propaganda.
Aside of that, I told several times, Trump was never my dream candidate. But that is another subject. At the time of the election he was the less problematic option for me. So, you obviously disagree, well that is your right in a democracy and while I disagree with your preference, I would be defend your right in that.
Here is the rub: I did not just believe, I did research. That is, why I know how much of the bull you quote is bull. But then, it is how people like you work. One starts the lying and all the other little helpers link it and link it and link it till they believe their own inventions themselves. I looked at the first three accusations of what D-ECHO linked, and 3 out of 3 where inventions. Even the NY Times, and that is for sure not in any way a conservative paper, has called out the Hilary followers for that. So, what, did you expect me to waste my time with going through hundreds of those fabrications?
So, well, you don't get it ... it's okay, many of those socialist followers never got it, socialism is the opium for the gullible, big promises and loss of any effective voting right comes with it, as usual. See, in the GDR, you could vote, only they didn't count the votes that weren't for the SED because the brass decided who would win the race. Same with the NSDAP till the Ermächtigungsgesetz. Same with the Communist party on Cuba. Same with the people socialist party in North Korea. Same with the Democrats. They run an alibi candidate to let people like you think, you have a choice, but in fact, it is all already decided. And the gullibles like you fall for it every time.
But as I said, you are useful, you spread their hate message, you didn't even look at the numbers, you just drool and leap at everyone who doesn't agree with a candidate, you had not even a part into making the candidate.
But then, that is the democracy understanding of the left, if you can call that understanding. See, Trump won the election. All drooling, all stomping with your little feet will not change that.
Aside of that, you know, sometimes, weird things happen in the Internet. Something for example multiplies in some inexplainable ways. The first thing, you want to do is looking for IPs. Just in case, someone has for example multiplied invented accusations ... see, when people cheat, they often forget, their IP address is logged. Just saying. Maybe give it a try, for example on the sites, D-ECHO linked?
Oh, and I promised a hint what there is to see in the Sprint/T-Online balances? Their volume. Both together are effectively able to compete against Verizon. Each alone, they are perpetually losing ground which makes Verizon more and more the lion who determines the prices.

[Lydiot]

You remember, the Republicans had primaries? The Democrats let run Bernie Sanders as alibi but made their decision on brass-level. Shows how much you count to your parts ... nothing ...

Can you try that using the English language please?

PS: I'm not a Democrat.

while I disagree with your preference,

I've never ever stated my preference though, it's just your assumption.

Here is the rub: I did not just believe, I did research. That is, why I know how much of the bull you quote is bull. But then, it is how people like you work. One starts the lying and all the other little helpers link it and link it and link it till they believe their own inventions themselves. I looked at the first three accusations of what D-ECHO linked, and 3 out of 3 where inventions. Even the NY Times, and that is for sure not in any way a conservative paper, has called out the Hilary followers for that. So, what, did you expect me to waste my time with going through hundreds of those fabrications?
So, well, you don't get it ... it's okay, many of those socialist followers never got it, socialism is the opium for the gullible, big promises and loss of any effective voting right comes with it, as usual. See, in the GDR, you could vote, only they didn't count the votes that weren't for the SED because the brass decided who would win the race. Same with the NSDAP till the Ermächtigungsgesetz. Same with the Communist party on Cuba. Same with the people socialist party in North Korea. Same with the Democrats. They run an alibi candidate to let people like you think, you have a choice, but in fact, it is all already decided. And the gullibles like you fall for it every time.
But as I said, you are useful, you spread their hate message, you didn't even look at the numbers, you just drool and leap at everyone who doesn't agree with a candidate, you had not even a part into making the candidate.
But then, that is the democracy understanding of the left, if you can call that understanding. See, Trump won the election. All drooling, all stomping with your little feet will not change that.
Aside of that, you know, sometimes, weird things happen in the Internet. Something for example multiplies in some inexplainable ways. The first thing, you want to do is looking for IPs. Just in case, someone has for example multiplied invented accusations ... see, when people cheat, they often forget, their IP address is logged. Just saying. Maybe give it a try, for example on the sites, D-ECHO linked?
Oh, and I promised a hint what there is to see in the Sprint/T-Online balances? Their volume. Both together are effectively able to compete against Verizon. Each alone, they are perpetually losing ground which makes Verizon more and more the lion who determines the prices.

You write a fair amount about fairly "fuzzy" false news which one can apparently find by using IP searches, and I don't disagree with that. Fake news is a huge problem, and the problem exists on "both sides". However, I posted videos where you can hear for yourself Trump in his own words, and read Trump's own tweet, and you can't escape the simple fact that he's a liar.

And comparing the Democrats to the regime in North Korea is just beyond idiotic. Which party is trying to stop votes from being recounted in the US? Which side is that? And you have the balls to talk about counting votes!? That's fairly typical I think.