Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

I am not wrong. People retiring, people deciding to stay home with children or for other reasons while a spouse or partner works, etc.

Labor Participation Rate is a horrible measure, because it will show bad participation rates both when the economy is the greatest or when it is the worst. Then, it is also affected by the age of the population at any given time.

The unemployment rate doesn't have these issues.

Your idea about it is incorrect.

We're going to need separate thread for the 2020 candidates but I don't think Klobuchar will be the nominee.

I can see her as the VP running mate with Booker, though. That's a pretty moderate ticket policy-wise while at the same diverse by race and gender.

They hit the middle with age and experience , also. Not too old or too young.

But Kamala Harris heading the ticket with Mayor Pete at VP would cast a wide net.

Biden with Kamala would work.

Warren with Booker.

Bernie would pick someone out of nowhere to run with him.

Bernie is old, but Kamala as VP would balance it.

Flagpole wrote:

Participation Rate wrote:

YOU ARE WRONG.

You do not understand how to see a trend. Learn to look at the participate rate AS A TREND. Then you will make sense.

NO. 400,000 people DID NOT RETIRE---boatloads-since February. You are making numbers up cover up you do not understand the concept of trend analysis.

I am not wrong. People retiring, people deciding to stay home with children or for other reasons while a spouse or partner works, etc.

Labor Participation Rate is a horrible measure, because it will show bad participation rates both when the economy is the greatest or when it is the worst. Then, it is also affected by the age of the population at any given time.

The unemployment rate doesn't have these issues.

Your idea about it is incorrect.

YOU ARE WRONG. Get that through your thick skull.

The unemployment rate is a WORTHLESS number.

Learn how to look at trends. So far, you have failed to do so. You simply do not understand the concept of trends, and forget about concept of parametric analysis (used to determine trend equations and variance--their reliability).

Kamala also showed with Barr that she can lead the ticket.

Flagpole wrote:

Participation Rate wrote:

YOU ARE WRONG.

You do not understand how to see a trend. Learn to look at the participate rate AS A TREND. Then you will make sense.

NO. 400,000 people DID NOT RETIRE---boatloads-since February. You are making numbers up cover up you do not understand the concept of trend analysis.

I am not wrong. People retiring, people deciding to stay home with children or for other reasons while a spouse or partner works, etc.

Labor Participation Rate is a horrible measure, because it will show bad participation rates both when the economy is the greatest or when it is the worst. Then, it is also affected by the age of the population at any given time.

The unemployment rate doesn't have these issues.

Your idea about it is incorrect.

AND, actually, something I have discussed for YEARS in the Dow thread, 10,000 Americans EVERY DAY turn 65 now (which also means 10,000 every day turn 67, because this has been going on for a while now). That is 300,000 every month. In a great economy, with the stock market riding high, do you not think most of those would retire? Do you really believe 400,000 haven't retired since February when 900,000+ were eligible to? This doesn't even account for those who are much younger who just decide not to work anymore because their spouse has a good job...I know several like that.

I don't like to beat people over the head when they are wrong, but you came back pretty strong with your ignorant position. Educate yourself and try again.

jesseriley wrote:

Kamala also showed with Barr that she can lead the ticket.

How did she do that? By unsubstantiated claims? By making accusations that are totally wrong? Is that how you lead the ticket? LOL.

Bombshell: trump & vladdy discussed whether to let McGahn testify! WTF?

You have said now at least 3 times that you would not respond to me any more. I knew that was bogus.

I guess I could exchange "stupid" for "liar". Nah...you are both.

I have correctly defined Trump supporters who continue to support him today as "just stupid" or "racist". This is something that applies to anyone who supports him. You continue to do so, so you fall into that definition. It is nothing personal. If my adult children supported him, I would tell them that they were stupid to do so.

Also, I actually did both -- refuted your position and reminded you that you continue to be stupid.

I am not a fan of name calling and have said so several times here, but there are certain actions that people do that make them stupid or not. Supporting a dangerous serial lying criminal President who is still today actively doing everything he can to stop any investigations into him is stupid. He is not for a free press. He is not for free speech. He believes he is above the law. It is beyond ridiculous to support such a President...and beyond in such a way that it is stupid to do so.

You will stop being stupid when your behavior says so.

She forced him to say I Don’t Know whether trump discussed retaliation.

Blah, blah blah blah blah blahm. Flagpole, I am THIS close to banning you forever. If EVER there was anyone on thin ice it is YOU. So shape up or I will have to Ban you FOREVER. Got it? AGain, you are on the thinnest ice EVER. You don't want to fall through the ice. Think about it, son.

Kamala asked Barr if Trump had suggested anyone to investigate and Barr said he was grappling with the word "suggest".

She absolutely can win at the top of the ticket against Trump.

The question is if she can win the nomination. It's way too early to say now.

L L wrote:

Kamala asked Barr if Trump had suggested anyone to investigate and Barr said he was grappling with the word "suggest".

She absolutely can win at the top of the ticket against Trump.

The question is if she can win the nomination. It's way too early to say now.

Her current polling is very low. She is maybe at 2% or maybe 3. Not sure she can do what Bill Clinton did.

L L wrote:

We're going to need separate thread for the 2020 candidates but I don't think Klobuchar will be the nominee.

I can see her as the VP running mate with Booker, though. That's a pretty moderate ticket policy-wise while at the same diverse by race and gender.

They hit the middle with age and experience , also. Not too old or too young.

But Kamala Harris heading the ticket with Mayor Pete at VP would cast a wide net.

Biden with Kamala would work.

Warren with Booker.

Bernie would pick someone out of nowhere to run with him.

I think you overrate the effect of the selection of a VP running mate. 2016 was 100% Trump vs Hillary. Unless it's someone as moranic as Palin, it doesn't make any difference.

Being VP is somewhat of a meaningless job, but it's a good stepping stone to running for president for a younger candidate. For Klobuchar, the time is now, and if she can't get the nomination, I would expect her to want to remain as a senator.

I haven't focused on Harris or Booker, but they don't seem that likeable and Booker comes across as too much of a self promoter.

L L wrote:

We're going to need separate thread for the 2020 candidates but I don't think Klobuchar will be the nominee.

I can see her as the VP running mate with Booker, though. That's a pretty moderate ticket policy-wise while at the same diverse by race and gender.

They hit the middle with age and experience , also. Not too old or too young.

But Kamala Harris heading the ticket with Mayor Pete at VP would cast a wide net.

Biden with Kamala would work.

Warren with Booker.

Bernie would pick someone out of nowhere to run with him.

I haven't picked a favorite yet, but I am beginning to form some opinions (that could still change).

Warren is probably the smartest of them all, but she is the worst candidate of them all simply because of the Native American thing.

Kamala Harris is very smart and would be a great President.

Gillibrand is my least favorite.

Bernie is too far left for me on a couple of things, so he's not my favorite.

Biden is old news and has some baggage. He would be a good President though.

So far Corey Booker doesn't have the Presidential thing down as well as the others do. I still like him though.

Buttigieg is interesting. Smart and measured. I am not a fan of his lack of experience, however. I think he would do well to run for a Senate seat first and then think about President later on.

Beto - Polls seem to still say he has the best chance to beat Trump, but he's still a little goofy for me to fully embrace just yet as the favorite...and I will never pick a favorite just based on whether they can win or not.

I agree with you about Klobachar. She and Booker (Booker as VP) would be an interesting ticket.

Kamala Harris with Buttigieg as VP would be my choice above Klobachar and Booker. I'm not sure that's a good move politically for Mayor Pete though. If he has Presidential aspirations (which he clearly does), he should get inside the beltway for a while...House or Senate, or run for governor...but I do appreciate the federal exposure more than governor of a state.

Sally Vix wrote:

L L wrote:

Kamala asked Barr if Trump had suggested anyone to investigate and Barr said he was grappling with the word "suggest".

She absolutely can win at the top of the ticket against Trump.

The question is if she can win the nomination. It's way too early to say now.

Her current polling is very low. She is maybe at 2% or maybe 3. Not sure she can do what Bill Clinton did.

Well back in the day, she had a lot of help in her political career from her married suger daddy, Willie Brown.

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Her current polling is very low. She is maybe at 2% or maybe 3. Not sure she can do what Bill Clinton did.

Well back in the day, she had a lot of help in her political career from her married suger daddy, Willie Brown.

I don't think you can dismiss her accomplishments as a criminal prosecutor.

Flagpole wrote:

Participation Rate wrote:

YOU ARE WRONG.

You do not understand how to see a trend. Learn to look at the participate rate AS A TREND. Then you will make sense.

NO. 400,000 people DID NOT RETIRE---boatloads-since February. You are making numbers up cover up you do not understand the concept of trend analysis.

I am not wrong. People retiring, people deciding to stay home with children or for other reasons while a spouse or partner works, etc.

Labor Participation Rate is a horrible measure, because it will show bad participation rates both when the economy is the greatest or when it is the worst. Then, it is also affected by the age of the population at any given time.

The unemployment rate doesn't have these issues.

Your idea about it is incorrect.

Flat out WRONG.

It is clear you don’t have the slightest concept of economics as it relates to labor participation rate and unemployment.

Just stop. Your posts are embarrassing.

No no no wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

I am not wrong. People retiring, people deciding to stay home with children or for other reasons while a spouse or partner works, etc.

Labor Participation Rate is a horrible measure, because it will show bad participation rates both when the economy is the greatest or when it is the worst. Then, it is also affected by the age of the population at any given time.

The unemployment rate doesn't have these issues.

Your idea about it is incorrect.

Flat out WRONG.

It is clear you don’t have the slightest concept of economics as it relates to labor participation rate and unemployment.

Just stop. Your posts are embarrassing.

Flagpole - I am not really writing this because I banned you and am having no communication with you ... BUT do you think it is not odd that you are the one ALWAYS RIGHT. and everyone else is wrong. YOu call me stupid. You call this person embarrassing. You call another one an idiot. Why are you the one always right? Do you not realize that there are some very smart people here - people MUCH SMARTER than some hick from Ohio - and for you to chastise them for country bumpkins is pretty pathetic. It is time YOU looked in the mirror and realized you are the small fry playing on the big stage.