Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Unemployment was on a practically linear drop since 2010.View attachment 30304
I circled it in red for ya.
We can add chart comprehension to your growing list of inept skills.
View attachment 30302
The red line is the % of unemployed. The blue line is the dates. As you can clearly see now that I have explained to you how charts work. The unemployment % has decreased dramatically since 2016.
Of a married woman: "I moved on her like a B***h" (Kind of a goofy word to use, but after all this is Trump)
Because every Republican understands a guy moving on his wife like a B***h.
And of course, every Republican is fine with a man grabbing a woman by the p****, even if it's one's wife, sister, or daughter.
Actually that circle around 2016 indicates a rebound from a previous dip. So not tanking.View attachment 30304
I circled it in red for ya.
We can add chart comprehension to your growing list of inept skills.
View attachment 30302
The red line is the % of unemployed. The blue line is the dates. As you can clearly see now that I have explained to you how charts work. The unemployment % has decreased dramatically since 2016.
Admittedly, I don't pay much attention to who's running until it starts to thin out as it gets closer to the election. Right now everyone and their mom has their hat in the ring.
I wouldn't call it tanking and nothing Trump did caused the upsurge in 2016. The economy tanked in 2009. That is a tanked economy.
The markets may, but GDP does not. That chart is GDP. The markets have been on an upward trend since 2009. The old switcharoo is not working for you. The major economic trend since 2009 has been positive. Those periods of stock selloff were part of global trends that were still not the economy tanking.
What is not in good faith? I have presented actual data - from reliable sources - you have just continued to talk through your hat...or something. You block me out all you like - you can even stick your fingers in your ears and shout "not listening, not listening..." - but it won't change any of the facts.
But wouldn't the market response to an election result normally happen after there is an election result rather than before? And correct me if I am wrong, but was a Trump win thought to be the most likely outcome in the first half of 2016? I seem to recall that this was not the popular opinion at the time.
Oh - leaving so soon? OK - Good day to you too then - toodle pip old bean!
See, he keeps promising, but then stays anyway.
I believe a Trump win was not anticipated all the way up to the point where he actually won. Somehow, his unanticipated win had some sort of reverse chronological quantum tunneling effect on the economy just prior to his win that substituted alternative facts for the real ones. Could have been magic too.
That's it. I am going.
I am not sure I want to stick around and watch a weak argument be run over by overwhelming facts.
What tanking was this? The evidence does not show that the economy was tanking.
I was actually conducting a quantitative experiment to determine just how much lipstick could be smeared on such a pig of an argument before giving up - I guess I have my answer now!
I do that sometimes too. It can be fun.
