Dump Shithole

[cantstopthemusic]

[Chip Z'Hoy]

Uh oh. Somebody's getting unhinged again, digging through his "archives."

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

[cantstopthemusic]

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

Since I never have, I guess that leaves you.

[Danzig in the Dark]

Uh oh. Somebody's getting unhinged again, digging through his "archives."

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

He said he got it back from her. It's strange how she disappeared at about that time, isn't it? Hmmmm....

[cantstopthemusic]

Uh oh. Somebody's getting unhinged again, digging through his "archives."

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

He said he got it back from her. It's strange how she disappeared at about that time, isn't it? Hmmmm....

She didn't disappear in 2006, dumbshit.

[Chip Z'Hoy]

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

Since I never have, I guess that leaves you.

Do you feel that since you got the money back that you weren't conned? How does that work?

[Danzig in the Dark]

Uh oh. Somebody's getting unhinged again, digging through his "archives."

One of us has never been conned out of air fare. So there's that.

He said he got it back from her. It's strange how she disappeared at about that time, isn't it? Hmmmm....

She didn't disappear in 2006, dumbshit.

When did she disappear?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Yeah, and.... the stock market has risen to new heights, consumer confidence increased "significantly" and existing-home sales rose. Gonna credit that to Putin as well?

No. Good news has been rolling in for years. DOW has tripled under Obama.

14 million is a hella big increase under Barry's watch.

Demographics. The low participation 55 and over group has gone from 30% of the working age population to 36% of the working age population. That group has a participation rate of only 40%. There obviously has not been a huge demographic shift since the election.


https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11324230
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU00024230

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Electoral College vote victory margin increases for Trump.

Good job unhinged liberals!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

[Turner Coates]

For a price, you too can buy access to Team Trump
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... a_20161220

By all accounts, Ivanka Trump will not be a typical presidential daughter. She’ll reportedly have a White House office, which she’ll be able to use to advocate for policies – a step she’s already taken with preliminary calls to Republican members of Congress. This follows a series of meetings Ivanka Trump has joined with her father, foreign leaders, domestic business leaders, and prospective cabinet members.

With this in mind, when Ivanka auctioned a lunch with her for tens of thousands of dollars, it raised eyebrows. Though the charitable auction was eventually scrapped, for a time, it appeared Donald Trump’s daughter was putting a high price on access to an influential member of the incoming president’s orbit.

This week, it’s apparently Ivanka’s brothers’ turn. Time magazine, among others, reported:

A new Texas nonprofit led by Donald Trump’s grown sons is offering access to the freshly-minted president during inauguration weekend – all in exchange for million-dollar donations to unnamed “conservation” charities, according to interviews and documents reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity.

And the donors’ identities may never be known.

Prospective million-dollar donors to the “Opening Day 2017” event – slated for Jan. 21, the day after inauguration, at Washington, D.C.’s Walter E. Washington Convention Center – receive a “private reception and photo opportunity for 16 guests with President Donald J. Trump,” a “multi-day hunting and/or fishing excursion for 4 guests with Donald Trump, Jr. and/or Eric Trump, and team,” as well as tickets to other events and “autographed guitars by an Opening Day 2017 performer.”

The prices aren’t cheap. For $250,000, donors can receive a “private reception and photo opportunity” with Donald Trump himself. To hunt with Trump’s adult sons, donors should expect to write a check for $500,000.

The details are murky, but according to the event management company helping oversee the fundraising, the money will go towards “conservation efforts.” There would be no legal requirement to disclose the donors’ names to the public.

In other words, on Jan. 20, Trump will be inaugurated. On Jan. 21, you can pony up some big bucks to hang out with the new president’s adult sons – who will apparently oversee Trump’s business empire – and no one will know it was you who bought the access.

All of this, of course, comes on the heels of additional fundraising – and additional access-at-a-cost efforts – from Trump’s inaugural committee. The Washington Post reported a few weeks ago:

The committee raising money for President-elect Donald Trump’s inaugural festivities is offering exclusive access to the new president, Cabinet nominees and congressional leaders in exchange for donations of $1 million and more.

For seven-figure contributions, Trump’s richest supporters will get a slew of special perks during the inauguration weekend, including eight tickets to a “candlelight dinner” that will feature “special appearances” by Trump, his wife, Melania, Vice President-elect Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, according to a sheet detailing “underwriter package benefits” obtained by The Washington Post. The 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee confirmed the authenticity of the donor brochure, which was first reported by the Center for Public Integrity.

Other million-donor benefits include an exclusive lunch “with select Cabinet appointees and House and Senate leadership,” four tickets to “an intimate dinner” with the Pences, eight tickets to a lunch with “the ladies of the first families,” eight tickets and premier access to the inaugural ball and priority booking at “Premier Inaugural Hotel(s).”

You can just hear the water being drained from the swamp, can’t you?

Trump’s team and its allies tend to respond to criticisms like these by pointing out that every modern president, from both parties, has had an inaugural committee that has done fundraising like this, and it’s just how things tend to work in Washington, D.C. And as pro-Trump arguments go, this defense at least has the benefit of being true.

But let’s not miss the forest for the trees: Trump ran on an anti-establishment platform, vowing to undo the business-as-usual norms in the nation’s capital. Trump, positioning himself as a faux-populist, said he was disgusted by what he saw as routine corruption, and the crushing influence of special interests, who could buy access with a hefty check. “Pay to play,” Trump effectively told voters, was one of the ugliest phrases in the political lexicon.

Paul Waldman added this morning, “You may recall how outraged Trump and pretty much every other Republican were at the idea that the Clinton Foundation – which actually does good work – could receive a large contribution from a donor who might at some later point have a meeting with the secretary of state. They described this as the absolute height of corruption, insider dealing so vile as to demand that Clinton be jailed at the earliest possible opportunity.”

And yet, here we are, watching leading members of Team Trump put a generous price on access to themselves, and engaging in the exact behavior the president-elect condemned as a candidate in the very recent past.

[radiobed]

No. Good news has been rolling in for years. DOW has tripled under Obama.

Now your lib friends here will agree with you, but we all know you're being completely disingenuous.

1. The stock market has been rolling since it's been around with steep declines frequently. It experiences (1) 20%+ drop every 3.5 years, yet averages 10-11% per year.

2. Picking the absolute low of a market crash, March 6th, 2009 (4 months after Obama was elected), and somehow comparing it to today's value to praise Obama is fucking silly. Just taking an extreme point in the market based on a temporary selloff is such stupid analysis of data and just shows us that ALL of your arguments should be quickly discarded.

Quite frankly, it's never a good idea to try and use the market as a sole way of measuring any president. It's one of many indicators that can be used to evaluate policies or opinions, but it is often misused to analyze ANY president. The market was going to comeback at some pace from that ridiculous selloff in 2009 regardless of who was president, it always does.

It's like the current short term bump in the US market, that is related to optimism in Trump's policies and expected deregulation, not any recent economic news. The market was 18,203 December 26, 2014, it was essentially that Election Day. Now this recent bump may have been false optimism and time will tell whether the administration delivers on this optimism. But you certainly can't look at the financial industry up almost 15% in a month and not attribute that move to expected policy changes.

So yeah, I don't feel like wasting my time arguing with people that dont look at things honestly like DeathRowJoe. But if someone wanted to discuss things honestly, I'm fine having a discussion...when I've got time to chat.

Now feel free to bash me for not praising Obama's economy, not bashing Trump or supposedly not knowing shit because my opinion doesn't fit your respective narratives.

[poisonheart]

But you certainly can't look at the financial industry up almost 15% in a month and not attribute that move to expected policy changes.

It's like the current short term bump in the US market, that is related to optimism in Trump's policies and expected deregulation, not any recent economic news.

Beg the question much? Again, you don't have an argument for this . . . other than the fact that it allegedly doesn't fit whatever strawman "narrative" du jour it is that you're preemptively disparaging.

You are a fucking parrot.

[DEATH ROW JOE]

1. The stock market has been rolling since it's been around with steep declines frequently. It experiences (1) 20%+ drop every 3.5 years, yet averages 10-11% per year.

From 1950 to 2009, the S&P composite appreciated 10.5%/year while nominal GDP grew 6.78%/year. From 2009 to 2015, the S&P composite appreciated 17.5%/year while nominal GDP grew 3.5%/year. The market has done terrific under Obama.

2. Picking the absolute low of a market crash, March 6th, 2009 (4 months after Obama was elected), and somehow comparing it to today's value to praise Obama is fucking silly. Just taking an extreme point in the market based on a temporary selloff is such stupid analysis of data and just shows us that ALL of your arguments should be quickly discarded.

LMFAO, the selloff started in Dec 2007 and ended shortly after Obama's stimulus became law. It was not a flash sell off.

Quite frankly, it's never a good idea to try and use the market as a sole way of measuring any president. It's one of many indicators that can be used to evaluate policies or opinions, but it is often misused to analyze ANY president. The market was going to comeback at some pace from that ridiculous selloff in 2009 regardless of who was president, it always does.

Larry Kudlow who Trump will reportedly nominate to chair the White House Council of Economic Advisers said the following:

"I have long believed that stock markets are the best barometer of the health, wealth and security of a nation. And today’s stock market message is an unmistakable vote of confidence for the president. "

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... nfide.html

It's like the current short term bump in the US market, that is related to optimism in Trump's policies and expected deregulation, not any recent economic news.

Ridiculous. The stock market is responding to an economy that is at full employment and rising wages. The Fed raised rates to cool down the economy for fuck sake. Trump's promise to return to the policies that tanked the economy under Bush are holding the market back.

[radiobed]

Way to cherry pick and lie. Picks an S&P period ending and beginning at the low point of a huge crash!!! That's not disingenuous at all!! Do you seriously think anyone believes using March of 2009 as a starting or ending point of an average market period is not misleading?!?

Seriously man, a lot here want to believe you. Maybe you even believe your own spin. I know you're spewing nonsense and misinformation. Looks like a lot of the country realized that too.

Take care, I'm not going to waste my time arguing lies and misleading analysis that will only lead to more lies and misleading analysis.

[Chip Z'Hoy]

Way to cherry pick and lie. Picks an S&P period ending and beginning at the low point of a huge crash!!! That's not disingenuous at all!! Do you seriously think anyone believes using March of 2009 as a starting or ending point of an average market period is not misleading?!?

Seriously man, a lot here want to believe you. Maybe you even believe your own spin. I know you're spewing nonsense and misinformation. Looks like a lot of the country realized that too.

Take care, I'm not going to waste my time arguing lies and misleading analysis that will only lead to more lies and misleading analysis.

You've been owned. Act accordingly! Puto.

[Turner Coates]

Take care, I'm not going to waste my time arguing lies and misleading analysis that will only lead to more lies and misleading analysis.

Didn't you already do that?

[exitflagger]

The Trump bump is UNPRESIDENTED!!

[radiobed]

Alex, I'll try lies and misinformation for $1000:

In late October of 1987, the market had dropped 41% from its high in August of 1987. In just 5 short years, the continuation of Reagan's policies with George H averages 20.9% per year in returns!!! Greatest prez ever!! #Duh

[Chip Z'Hoy]

Alex, I'll try lies and misinformation for $1000:

In late October of 1987, the market had dropped 41% from its high in August of 1987. In just 5 short years, the continuation of Reagan's policies with George H averages 20.9% per year in returns!!! Greatest prez ever!! #Duh

Wow. You didn't even make it an hour.

[poisonheart]

Let's review radiosped logic:



This is just par for the course growth which it would be downright silly to attribute in any direct fashion to the economic policies of the Obama administration. This sample is both hasty and arbitrarily cherry picked.



This, on the other hand, is knock down, drag out evidence of the market's enthusiasm for the President Elect and his grand economic vision. This is not hastily selected, cherry picked data like the prior sample which was taken over a period 96 times longer.

Why, you ask? Because radiosped has proclaimed so ex cathedra. Any conflicting empirical account of this growth is simply evidence of "narratives" and "agendas" on the part of lying liars who lie. Lugensludge!

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Way to cherry pick and lie. Picks an S&P period ending and beginning at the low point of a huge crash!!!

Huge correction that lasted 15 months. The DOW started to correct in Dec 2007 and bottomed out in March 2009. Bush's policies inflated a housing bubble, a commercial real estate bubble and a stock market bubble. All underwent a correction and the correct price was reached March 2009. Proper starting point is March 2009.



Be sure to pick up a copy. You're going to need it:

[radiobed]

Let's review radiosped logic:



This is just par for the course growth which it would be downright silly to attribute in any direct fashion to the economic policies of the Obama administration. This sample is both hasty and arbitrarily cherry picked.



This, on the other hand, is knock down, drag out evidence of the market's enthusiasm for the President Elect and his grand economic vision. This is not hastily selected, cherry picked data like the prior sample which was taken over a period 96 times longer.

Why, you ask? Because radiosped has proclaimed so ex cathedra. Any conflicting empirical account of this growth is simply evidence of "narratives" and "agendas" on the part of lying liars who lie. Lugensludge!

Being the 6th grade grammar teacher, I believe you are honestly misinterpreting the data.

Let me explain, big events can have a short term effect. The markets priced in a Hillary victory. When Trump won, you certainly would attribute the major moves right after to the forecasting of this unexpected presidency. If you don't believe me, fine, live in denial.

When taking March of 2009, the bottom of a market crash, it's not hard to imagine the next few years would look pretty damn good. If something averages 10-11% per year and you just shaved 50%, you would expect a rebound. Just like you saw in 1987-1992 under the Bush years.

If you're implying a republican president would not have seen a similar rebound over that period, you're only lying to yourself. A recovery happens every 3.5 years on average, some greater than others. They follow similar patterns.

With Obama, there is a lot of underlying economic data that isn't rosy. I've pointed some things out multiple times so I'm not wasting my time again.

[poisonheart]

Being the 6th grade grammar teacher, I believe you are honestly misinterpreting the data.

Again, remind me of what your doctorate is in and how many logic texts you co-authored or edited? From your financial "expertise" I'm guessing that your job in the "industry" is as an "Herbalife" middleman. Am I close?

Let me explain, big events can have a short term effect. The markets priced in a Hillary victory. When Trump won, you certainly would attribute the major moves right after to the forecasting of this unexpected presidency.

Yeah, the markets just love uncertainty. His presidency will be a fucking metonym for uncertainty.

If you don't believe me, fine, live in denial.

That's not an argument. That's begging the question. That is what you do in lieu of argument when you don't have one.

When taking March of 2009, the bottom of a market crash, it's not hard to imagine the next few years would look pretty damn good.

Close to a decade of unimpeded growth is now a "few years"?

If you're implying a republican president would not have seen a similar rebound over that period, you're only lying to yourself. A recovery happens every 3.5 years on average, some greater than others. They follow similar patterns.

It's amazingly ironic that you are willing to admit the fallibility of concomitant variation inferences in the long term, but not in samples lasting approximately a month.

With Obama, there is a lot of underlying economic data that isn't rosy. I've pointed some things out multiple times so I'm not wasting my time again.

In other words, "I don't have an argument, so don't press me for one." Heard you loud and clear the first time.

[exitflagger]

Jesus Christ, it's like talking to a wall.

"But... but... TRUMP!!!"

[DEATH ROW JOE]

Being the 6th grade grammar teacher, I believe you are honestly misinterpreting the data.

Let me explain, big events can have a short term effect. The markets priced in a Hillary victory. When Trump won, you certainly would attribute the major moves right after to the forecasting of this unexpected presidency. If you don't believe me, fine, live in denial.

The problem you have is that the general consensus prior to the election was that Trump would be bad for the market.

If Trump is elected president, it would be 'exceedingly harmful’ to markets 27 Oct 2016
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/27/if-trump ... ntary.html

Citigroup: Stock Market Will Fall if Donald Trump Is Elected President 5 Nov 2016
http://fortune.com/2016/11/05/stock-mar ... ald-trump/

When taking March of 2009, the bottom of a market crash, it's not hard to imagine the next few years would look pretty damn good. If something averages 10-11% per year and you just shaved 50%, you would expect a rebound. Just like you saw in 1987-1992 under the Bush years.

Wrong. There wasn't a stock market bubble in 1987 and it's ridiculous to compare the one day crash in 1987 to the long slow 15 month correction that took place between Dec 2007 and March 2009. Stocks were highly overvalued in Dec 2007 and they reached their correct value in March 2009.

If you're implying a republican president would not have seen a similar rebound over that period, you're only lying to yourself. A recovery happens every 3.5 years on average, some greater than others. They follow similar patterns.

LMFAO, you're fucking delusional. GOP policies created a global financial crisis. Had McCain/Palin won in 2008, the economy would still be in recession.

With Obama, there is a lot of underlying economic data that isn't rosy. I've pointed some things out multiple times so I'm not wasting my time again.

There is always economic data that is not "rosy" dummy. The participation rate during the 60s was under 60% even though the economy grew 4.73%/year.

[Gazpacho]

Can't fucking believe you fuckers are still beating this dead horse.

[That-guy]

Can't fucking believe you fuckers are still beating this dead horse.

Just wait. The right never stopped hating Obama, why should the left treat Trump any different?

[brotherplanet]

Electoral College vote victory margin increases for Trump.

Good job unhinged liberals!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

It's a sad day when the Russians have to expose the fact that Hilarity and the DNC conspired to rig the primaries against Bernie Sanders, when our own reporters should have been investigating this for themselves.

[radiobed]

The problem you have is that the general consensus prior to the election was that Trump would be bad for the market.

If Trump is elected president, it would be 'exceedingly harmful’ to markets 27 Oct 2016

Money talks, and it has spoken. One day you'll catch on to what's "said" and what matters.

[Gazpacho]

Can't fucking believe you fuckers are still beating this dead horse.

Just wait. The right never stopped hating Obama, why should the left treat Trump any different?

My dad can beat up your dad