Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Not Sally wrote:

1) I am not claiming any gains as Trump's. Market gains and losses do not belong to Presidents. Indeed, Presidents generally have only a tiny effect on the market, if any at all.

And yet, you made the 50% gain claim on behalf of Trump, and stole from Obama to make that work, but only if you rounded up to claim only ONE significant digit (only gains/loses of 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. count in your weird investment world).

You claimed wrote:

Not Sally wrote:

1) I am not claiming any gains as Trump's. Market gains and losses do not belong to Presidents. Indeed, Presidents generally have only a tiny effect on the market, if any at all.

And yet, you made the 50% gain claim on behalf of Trump, and stole from Obama to make that work, but only if you rounded up to claim only ONE significant digit (only gains/loses of 10%, 20%, 30%, etc. count in your weird investment world).

Your stupidity is profound. Far too profound for me to attempt to overcome.

You are now dismissed.

not trump's market wrote:

18 months wrote:

In the last 18 months Trump's market has grown a whopping –0.4%. How is a negative percentage growth?

^ This is the best indicator the stock market under Trump. How did he manage to f*ck it up so much in the last year and a half?

Markets go up and markets go down and markets stay flat. You have to consider all of that as a given.

The fact is that the Dow has gone from 19762 to 26,686 today (as of now). THAT is booming. Only the total climb matters. If it had gone up the same amount everyday from Inauguration to today so that we were also at 26,686 today that would be booming, right? Same is true with ups and downs and stagnant periods when talking of the market during Trump's presidency. If you want to talk about just the last 18 months, then it is stagnant. BUT, if we talk of Trump's presidency, it is booming. No argument to be had about that.

But if we talk about what the market has done since Trump's tax cut a year and a half ago we say that it is not booming.

And more to the point, he can't get out the way.

His words have hurt market performance. If he never threatened tariffs on China or Mexico the numbers would be even higher.

L L wrote:

But if we talk about what the market has done since Trump's tax cut a year and a half ago we say that it is not booming.

And more to the point, he can't get out the way.

His words have hurt market performance. If he never threatened tariffs on China or Mexico the numbers would be even higher.

The markets are all at all-time highs. Can you not even say that?

The markets are at all time highs.

The markets also have made no gains in the last year and a half. Can you say that?

L L wrote:

The markets are at all time highs.

The markets also have made no gains in the last year and a half. Can you say that?

The market's performance has virtually nothing to do with the Presidents actions.

Can both you and Sally not even comprehend that?

Meanwhile Biden apparently reverses his long-standing support for the death penalty...

I'm sure his "authenticity" will hold up well when he keeps flipping positions he has held and worked to advance his entire career.

No matter, the "moderates" here will still support him and then be shocked when Trump beats him for another term.

Some good news for the Dems -

Roy Moore just announced that he is going to run for Senate. Everyone had assumed Doug Jones would lose his seat next year, but now maybe not.

I'm going to sit back and think about D control of all three - WH, HR, Senate. I need this little mental vacation.

agip wrote:

I'm going to sit back and think about D control of all three - WH, HR, Senate. I need this little mental vacation.

You better get behind somebody other than Biden...

Interesting question - will next week's debates shake up the standings? Will the shakeout start and we start losing the 1%ers?

Probably Harris will move up, Buttigieg too. I think Biden will do fine.

Warren might start falling back - attending a lecture class on policy isn't really why people watch debates.

Sanders? I think he's stuck now and forever where he is. He has some hardcore people who will live or die with him, but I just don't see him expanding his reach.

L L wrote:

But if we talk about what the market has done since Trump's tax cut a year and a half ago we say that it is not booming.

And more to the point, he can't get out the way.

His words have hurt market performance. If he never threatened tariffs on China or Mexico the numbers would be even higher.

Ok...now you have a different starting point.

1) Market BOOMING since he took office.

2) Market NOT booming since a year and a half ago.

3) I agree that his tariff talk DOES make the markets go down, but it is unclear if today the markets would be higher without that talk, because as soon as the talk stops or there is word that he will meet with Xi Jinping, etc., the markets go back up. He causes volatility for sure, but it's impossible to prove long-term damage.

4) I am happy with the stock market performance during his presidency as I was during Obama's. I don't need it to go up ever again at this point, so I don't have an emotional attachment to the market like others might. I actually never did because I don't behave on emotions; only logic and truth and justice.

Often wrong but never in doubt wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm going to sit back and think about D control of all three - WH, HR, Senate. I need this little mental vacation.

You better get behind somebody other than Biden...

Trump is already behind Biden, far behind. Which explains why Trump and Trumpers are soooooo afraid of him.

trump is behind wrote:

Trump is already behind Biden, far behind. Which explains why Trump and Trumpers are soooooo afraid of him.

Matchup polling this far out is totally stupid. Trump polls between 40 and 42 percent against every major democratic candidate. So Trump is not very popular right now.

The very small differences in how candidates are doing against Trump are all within the margin of error and if they represent anything beyond statistical artifact it is likely name recognition.

Often wrong but never in doubt wrote:

trump is behind wrote:

Trump is already behind Biden, far behind. Which explains why Trump and Trumpers are soooooo afraid of him.

Matchup polling this far out is totally stupid. Trump polls between 40 and 42 percent against every major democratic candidate. So Trump is not very popular right now.

The very small differences in how candidates are doing against Trump are all within the margin of error and if they represent anything beyond statistical artifact it is likely name recognition.

You are very afraid. That is obvious.

Often wrong but never in doubt wrote:

trump is behind wrote:

Trump is already behind Biden, far behind. Which explains why Trump and Trumpers are soooooo afraid of him.

Matchup polling this far out is totally stupid. Trump polls between 40 and 42 percent against every major democratic candidate. So Trump is not very popular right now.

The very small differences in how candidates are doing against Trump are all within the margin of error and if they represent anything beyond statistical artifact it is likely name recognition.

it's obviously too early to get much out of anything.

I would say that a major reason HRC lost is that well she wasnt' very popular. Her disapproval ratings were as low as trump's. I don't think it was her politics - it was just her, and trump's effective insults.

hard for me to believe Biden will sink down to that kind of disapproval.

agip wrote:

Interesting question - will next week's debates shake up the standings? Will the shakeout start and we start losing the 1%ers?

Probably Harris will move up, Buttigieg too. I think Biden will do fine.

Warren might start falling back - attending a lecture class on policy isn't really why people watch debates.

Sanders? I think he's stuck now and forever where he is. He has some hardcore people who will live or die with him, but I just don't see him expanding his reach.

I'm not sure I think debates will move things all that much. I would like to see a few of the 1%ers drop out. There is no compelling case for a Hickenlooper or Salwell candidacy.

I think Biden is on a downward slide anyway. He is not a good debater but he probably won't mess up enough to really change that. I agree with you on Sanders. I think the people who have a chance are sort of the second tier candidates who should be good viable candidates but have failed to catch any fire. Somebody like Booker, maybe, could have a breakout moment and actually become a part of the pack. Maybe Harris, I admit I still have no handle on Harris as a candidate. Maybe Klobuchar, although I am doubtful of her viability. It is possibly O'Rourke's last gasp, as if he can't turn his momentum around soon it may be curtains for him.

Anyone want to guess who these fine folks voted for?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/us/parents-brawl-little-league-baseball-trnd/index.html

agip wrote:

Often wrong but never in doubt wrote:

Matchup polling this far out is totally stupid. Trump polls between 40 and 42 percent against every major democratic candidate. So Trump is not very popular right now.

The very small differences in how candidates are doing against Trump are all within the margin of error and if they represent anything beyond statistical artifact it is likely name recognition.

it's obviously too early to get much out of anything.

I would say that a major reason HRC lost is that well she wasnt' very popular. Her disapproval ratings were as low as trump's. I don't think it was her politics - it was just her, and trump's effective insults.

hard for me to believe Biden will sink down to that kind of disapproval.

Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton...none were considered a threat for the nomination until well into the debates.

Alan