The Omarosa Chronicles

Ric Flair said:
I don’t recall our intelligence agencies ever conspiring to prevent a President from being elected or to undermine him once he has been. So I find it unsurprising that Trump has little use for the intelligence agencies. They have only themselves to blame.
Click to expand...
What in the holy heck are you implying?

 
BigRedBuster said:
What in the holy heck are you implying?
Click to expand...


That Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinton, Obama, and others were all strongly of the opinion that Trump should not be President and represented a real danger. 

What happened next? I don’t think we know all the details yet.

 
Ric Flair said:
That Brennan, Clapper, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Clinton, Obama, and others were all strongly of the opinion that Trump should not be President and represented a real danger. 

What happened next? I don’t think we know all the details yet.
Click to expand...


No, you implied a lot farther than that. 

And....they’ve been proven right. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The stronger the economy gets under Trump, the more desperate his critics are to hand credit over to Obama. Even if that entails changing the past,” says an Investor’s Business Daily editorial. “A recent New York Times story says it all: ‘An economic upturn begun under Obama is now Trump’s to tout’.”

Things were not always thus.

‌
“We seem to recall that the economy was stagnating in 2016 after the weakest recovery from a recession since the Great Depression,” the IBD editorial noted. “In fact, The New York Times itself described Obama’s economy this way in August 2016: ‘For three quarters in a row, the growth rate of the economy has hovered around a mere 1 percent,” the IBD editorial recalled. “In the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, the economy expanded at feeble annual rates of 0.9 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively.”



 



The editorial also cited similar coverage at CBS News.

“Now that the economy is outperforming everyone’s expectations, Trump’s critics want to pretend that the current boom was already baked in the cake,” the editorial said. “Now, after Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts are starting to take effect, we’re seeing still more signs of stronger growth. Polls show that the public gives Trump credit for what’s going on today. They, not the mainstream press, have it right.”
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtontimes.com

 
Voters understand that Trump is responsible for the vibrant economy, not Obama.

 A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters now believe the improving economy is due more to Trump than Obama, while 40% think it is more the result of the policies Obama put in place before he left office.
Click to expand...


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/july_2018/voters_more_likely_to_credit_trump_for_economy_over_obama

 
BigRedBuster said:
So....let me get this straight. 

The graphs are almost unrecognizable as far as before trump was in office and after.

but, before he was in office everything was horrible. Now everything is great. 

AND...people who point this out are the ones who are desperate?
Click to expand...


Have you ever played around graphing software? You can make a graph show anything you want by manipulating the data and how it’s presented. Explain the NYT story I quoted. Explain how economic growth has exploded under atrump after being tepid under Obama. Explain how the growth numbers under Trump were mocked as impossible by Obama.

 
BigRedBuster said:
No, you implied a lot farther than that. 

And....they’ve been proven right. 
Click to expand...


I think they were involved in illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign and were colluding with the Russian Government via the Fusion GPS connection and the Clintons via her connections in the Obama Regime to find dirt on Trump to prevent him from getting elected. Once he shocked the world by being elected, they shifted focus to undermining his legitimacy and trying to get him impeached. 

 
Ric Flair said:
I think they were involved in illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign and were colluding with the Russian Government via the Fusion GPS connection and the Clintons via her connections in the Obama Regime to find dirt on Trump to prevent him from getting elected. Once he shocked the world by being elected, they shifted focus to undermining his legitimacy and trying to get him impeached. 
Click to expand...


There's ample evidence this is exactly backwards.

 
knapplc said:
Let me try this again.

What does the bold mean? That piling on with obvious disdain is a bad thing? And that people who do this are in the wrong?

Because if this is actually what's being alleged with a straight face, how does the person complaining about this support Trump, or anything about his administration?

THE BOLD IS ALL TRUMP DOES.  It's what his Press Secretary does. It's what his cabinet members do. 

How can you lodge this as a complaint and expect to be taken seriously?
Click to expand...
First of all. You and several posters here are assuming that I support Trump. I haven't stated my allegiance to either side. I wasn't complaining either, simply pointing out something that I see is very obvious. Thus another example of people jumping to conclusions. Too often people let their emotions run rampant when addressing a topic. We see it daily in the streets with Antifa and Supremists etc etc. 

I don't have a dog in the fight so to speak but the animosity some show towards others here is palpable. Call it an observation if you will.

 
Ric Flair said:
Have you ever played around graphing software? You can make a graph show anything you want by manipulating the data and how it’s presented. Explain the NYT story I quoted. Explain how economic growth has exploded under atrump after being tepid under Obama. Explain how the growth numbers under Trump were mocked as impossible by Obama.
Click to expand...


Ohh lord.  If you are manipulating the data you are falsifying it.  This is that same old tired republican playbook crap "You can make statistics say anything!"  No, you can't do that without it being verifiable that you are lying by falsifying data.

This is why their style of argument works so well on the stupid and the lazy that only trust the republican propaganda arms, they'll never go verify it on their own.  Next you'll tell us that whatever data scientist gathered the data did so because they were paid to get only the data that represented the Obama administration well and they have a vested interest in keeping their grant funding or some equally ridiculous load of horse s#!t that shows the general lack of understanding of data and science by the majority of the republican sheep who treat it like its some sort of medieval sorcery.

The economy hasn't exploded in one direction or another, its remained basically fluctuating at the rate where it's been through most of the previous few years before Trump, until the summer where things seem to have leveled off and that's with the massive corporate welfare of the tax cuts.  In the latter part of this year and into next we'll get to see what happens with the shooting himself in the foot with tariffs. 

The article you posted wasn't an article, it was excerpts from an un-credited editorial from investors business daily.  Where you'll find other gems such as "Russian Collusion: It was Hillary all along" or "When it comes to the environment, These are the good ole days" and their claim to fame is having to print a retraction in an editorial arguing against single payer health care that said that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." So why aren't we all acknowledging your article?  Because it's not from the mainstream source you're trying to represent it as, its an opinion piece from a right wing blog site and its conclusions are questionable at best and not backed up by anything beyond the opinion of whoever wrote it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
God I love when people says it was the weakest recovery since the great depression. Wasn't it also the worst recession since the great depression? I wonder why it took so long to recover from arguably the second largest depression in US history...

 
methodical said:
Ohh lord.  If you are manipulating the data you are falsifying it.  This is that same old tired republican playbook crap "You can make statistics say anything!"  No, you can't do that without it being verifiable that you are lying by falsifying data.

This is why their style of argument works so well on the stupid and the lazy that only trust the republican propaganda arms, they'll never go verify it on their own.  Next you'll tell us that whatever data scientist gathered the data did so because they were paid to get only the data that represented the Obama administration well and they have a vested interest in keeping their grant funding or some equally ridiculous load of horse s#!t that shows the general lack of understanding of data and science by the majority of the republican sheep who treat it like its some sort of medieval sorcery.

The economy hasn't exploded in one direction or another, its remained basically fluctuating at the rate where it's been through most of the previous few years before Trump, until the summer where things seem to have leveled off and that's with the massive corporate welfare of the tax cuts.  In the latter part of this year and into next we'll get to see what happens with the shooting himself in the foot with tariffs. 

The article you posted wasn't an article, it was excerpts from an un-credited editorial from investors business daily.  Where you'll find other gems such as "Russian Collusion: It was Hillary all along" or "When it comes to the environment, These are the good ole days" and their claim to fame is having to print a retraction in an editorial arguing against single payer health care that said that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the [British] National Health Service (NHS) would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." So why aren't we all acknowledging your article?  Because it's not from the mainstream source you're trying to represent it as, its an opinion piece from a right wing blog site and its conclusions are questionable at best and not backed up by anything beyond the opinion of whoever wrote it.
Click to expand...


I’m not saying they manipulated the data. I wouldn’t put it past them however, as there is ample evidence that’s happening with the whole climate change charade. I am saying that when you place data in a graph, you can play around with how it’s set up to support whatever your position is. You just change what’s being measured, the units of measurement, and/or the time frames over which it’s being measured. 

So if you’re Team Trump, you can make it look like the growth is sudden and explosive. If you’re Team Obama, you can make it look like the growth is slower and gradual. 

 
Back
Top