You responded to a comment about Omar's autobiography being fictitious by saying that Trump lies. I then said two wrongs don't make a right. Then you said I was defending Trump, when what I said implicitly called Trump a liar. You're making fuck all sense.
Its like folks are completely incapable of processing scandals in 2020 without contextualizing it through a Trump filter, whether as a comparison or whataboutism to deflect or whatever else. And that filter is going haywire.

Dude, look at the god-awful chart you linked:




Are you seriously expecting me to take whateverthehellthisis seriously?
Furthermore, the argument in the underlying forbes article that you were too lazy to link ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2019/07/05/trump-is-falling-almost-1-million-jobs-short-vs-obama/ ) misses several key points:

- it was comparing all of the Trump presidency up until the time of its publication with the best months (economy-wise) of the Obama presidency
- adding jobs is easier coming out of a recession than during an already very mature point in the economic cycle (which is where Trump took over)
- the whole world economy was slowing down (slightly) in 2019


To add insult to injury, the shitty graph is showing private sector job growth while the article talks about a mix of total and private job growth. It's an incoherent mess and more of an opinion piece than a credible analysis. I'm honestly surprised that such a low quality piece was published in a reputable magazine like Forbes.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 22 2020 08:26am

Trump businesses have a 95% success rate, which is unheard of in the business world. Most businesses fail.

It should concern banks, not me.

what god awful.. my stupid paint adds? I already asked you to forgive my opinion on them.. the bottom of the graph shows the source.. Read all of what i said don't just cherry pick it. your 4058 post is literally somebody else using DOL #'s so your saying your source interpretation is more valid than FORBES source of interpretation? You realize the paint add is me right?
The author talks about why he selected those years.. Its easy to link the article.. "lazy" ffs
Its easy.. to take over an economy that has been corrected years before and not "fuck it up" there are two sides of that coin.. your jumping in on my argument with endless where he claims obama did nothing for it..

This post was edited by theCrossbones on May 22 2020 08:29am

LOL WHAT.......................adding jobs in a recession is not easier than doing it during expansion.

Recession means low investment, growth plans stall, consolidation of businesses which means more layoffs....................there is a reason why a recession is hard to get out of and requires a stimulus - normally in the form of gov spending to create those jobs. To say that adding jobs is harder in an expansionary phase when businesses have the ability and outlook to for growth is just completely wrong man.

trumps businesses do not have a 95% success rate...........but hey, an easy way to verify this info would be for him to release his tax returns.

I am not referring to your paint captions, these dont bother me. I'm talking about the extremely poor quality of the graph itself, as it's shown in the forbes article.




Where? I've read the entire article and didnt find any discussion/explanation for why the author used these specific 29 months of Obama's presidency.

Please explain why its of poor quality?
the graph is obviously used in two FORBES articles. Here is the one i was reading.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/07/obamas-last-three-years-of-job-growth-all-beat-trumps-best-year/#179054286ba6

This post was edited by theCrossbones on May 22 2020 08:37am

Nothing the US does, is affecting decisions that China has been making with regards to the South China Sea, the building of aircraft carriers or the acquisition of countries close enough to the EU and the US to act as leap off points for a military endeavor.
You can refuse to see the forest for the trees, but don't blame Trump or me, for your refusal to see the obvious.

Very lacking in granularity.
The shaded regions are very sloppy. According to this chart, Obama took over from Bush at the end of February or even March of 2009, while Trump is correctly indicated to have taken over from Obama at the beginning of January 2017.
The chart is showing "seasonally adjusted" growth, but what this means/which exact methodology is behind this adjustment is nowhere to be found, neither in the caption of the graphic itself or nor anywhere in the article.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on May 22 2020 08:42am