Trump Booed at Arizona Rally Over His New Endorsement

[candide]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Most credible economists seem content with the two quarter down rule. And they still are. Spin it as you like. We can see next year.

 

Like all the Democrat spending it will end up costing more than it saves. Spending is still spending and with this high amount of debt and inflation its wrong right now.

 

 

To call it a recession or not at this stage is much like splitting hairs. What matters is how it will evolve during next semester. If growth starts again nobody will care whether the first semester could be called a technical recession or not. If it's negative  there will be no doubt about the U.S. experiencing a recession. Obviously, economists are observing mixed signals and are considering that a further recession trend is not certain.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You keep stating stuff that is totally wrong.

You may consider the Capital hill protestors  as being an enemy waging war on the USA , but the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting 

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Trump said a lot of things. But when the rioters invaded the Capitol he did nothing. To your way of thinking what speaks louder action (or in this case inaction) or words?

You won't answer the question? I understand.

[nauseus]

15 minutes ago, candide said:

To call it a recession or not at this stage is much like splitting hairs. What matters is how it will evolve during next semester. If growth starts again nobody will care whether the first semester could be called a technical recession or not. If it's negative  there will be no doubt about the U.S. experiencing a recession. Obviously, economists are observing mixed signals and are considering that a further recession trend is not certain.

Might as well wait until 2024 then.

[Jingthing]

22 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You may consider the Capital hill protestors  as being an enemy waging war on the USA , but the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting 

You're clearly not posting in good faith. Ba-bye.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

21 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You may consider the Capital hill protestors  as being an enemy waging war on the USA , but the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting 

Wrong again.

 

Violent assault on the Capitol is not in any sense a ‘lawful protest’.

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Wrong again.

 

Violent assault on the Capitol is not in any sense a ‘lawful protest’.

 

I didn't say that it was a "Lawful protest "

How can I be wrong about something that I never said ?

You made up a false quote , attributed to me and then claimed that I was wrong !!!!!!!!

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

You won't answer the question? I understand.

Was it really that unclear? Yes he said that. Now tell me, what did he do to have the rioters evicted from the Capitol? Did he just watch the mayhem and do nothing?

[candide]

36 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

You may consider the Capital hill protestors  as being an enemy waging war on the USA , but the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting 

 

A lot of them have been charged, and a significant number already convicted according to "USA law".

Edited July 30, 2022 by candide

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Was it really that unclear? Yes he said that. Now tell me, what did he do to have the rioters evicted from the Capitol? Did he just watch the mayhem and do nothing?

Isn't that the Polices job, to keep civil order  ?

Its not the POTUS's job to tell the Police what to do . 

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police 

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, candide said:

In which alternate reality are you living? 

 

A lot of them have been charged, and a significant number already convicted according to "USA law".

My point was that they are regarded as being citizens protesting , rather than a foreign army invading the USA .

  I didn't say that they were protesting lawfully , I just said they were protestors and not an enemy 

[candide]

25 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Might as well wait until 2024 then.

For the time being, economists are still forecasting positive growth for 2022.

[Sparktrader]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

I guess when you've got nothing you resort to mass personal attacks on people who criticize Trump. How critics of Trump may feel about him is irrelevant.. What is relevant are the facts.

No attacks from me. Lots on Trump though. 

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, candide said:

For the time being, economists are still forecasting positive growth for 2022.

Ecomists are wrong most of the time. Thats why they are economists.

[simple1]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My point was that they are regarded as being citizens protesting , rather than a foreign army invading the USA .

  I didn't say that they were protesting lawfully , I just said they were protestors and not an enemy 

As you well know some have been charged with sedition which is an act of an enemy of the State.

 

https://apnews.com/article/stewart-rhodes-arrested-oath-keepers-jan-6-insurrection-70019e1007132e8df786aaf77215a110

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

No attacks from me. Lots on Trump though. 

So someone hacked into your account and called Trump critics "haters"?

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ecomists are wrong most of the time. Thats why they are economists.

Maybe that kind of silliness wins you plaudits in the circles you move in. Just more empty nonsense.

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I didn't say that it was a "Lawful protest "

How can I be wrong about something that I never said ?

You made up a false quote , attributed to me and then claimed that I was wrong !!!!!!!!

You said:

 

”the USA law regards them as being USA citizens protesting ”

 

No US law does not.

[candide]

3 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ecomists are wrong most of the time. Thats why they are economists.

Better believe MAGA posters on ASEANNOW.....????

[placeholder]

11 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Isn't that the Polices job, to keep civil order  ?

Its not the POTUS's job to tell the Police what to do . 

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police 

Such utter nonsense. There clearly weren't enough Capitol police. . His staff was entreating him to order in the guard The VP called to say they were in danger. Members of the Secret Service were saying goodbye to their loved ones. His VP called in to ask for assistance. 

[Sparktrader]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Maybe that kind of silliness wins you plaudits in the circles you move in. Just more empty nonsense.

Economists are wrong most of the time. Thats why they are still working for others. Experts are billionaires not wage slaves.

 

 

[Sparktrader]

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe that kind of silliness wins you plaudits in the circles you move in. Just more empty nonsense.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/why-economists-get-so-many-of-their-predictions-wrong-20210121-p56vyr.html

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

My point was that they are regarded as being citizens protesting , rather than a foreign army invading the USA .

  I didn't say that they were protesting lawfully , I just said they were protestors and not an enemy 

A bit more than protesting, take for example Enrique Tarrio, the Proud Boys leader, he and another 4 of his militia were charged with "seditious conspiracy"

[placeholder]

Just now, Sparktrader said:

Economists are wrong most of the time. Thats why they are still working for others. Experts are billionaires not wage slaves.

 

 

Economists are academics not investors. Most people work for wages. Scientists mostly work for wages. Are they wage slaves, too? You seem to believe that the purpose of economics is about picking winners and losers in the markets. It's not. And you keep on touting nonsense like economists are wrong most of the time. This seems to be consistent with your utter indifference to back up your assertions with facts.

[Sparktrader]

9 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Maybe that kind of silliness wins you plaudits in the circles you move in. Just more empty nonsense.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/19/20699366/interest-rates-unemployment-globalization-minimum-wage-deficit

[candide]

15 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Isn't that the Polices job, to keep civil order  ?

Its not the POTUS's job to tell the Police what to do . 

Trump wasn't the Chief of Police 

Frankly, you are not serious. It wasn't the average civil disorder, it was an assault on fundamental federal institutions established by the U.S. Constitution. Obviously a matter of national concern for a POTUS.

[Sparktrader]

Just now, placeholder said:

Economists are academics not investors. Most people work for wages. Scientists mostly work for wages. Are they wage slaves, too? You seem to believe that the purpose of economics is about picking winners and losers in the markets. It's not. And you keep on touting nonsense like economists are wrong most of the time. This seems to be consistent with your utter indifference to back up your assertions with facts.

They are wrong most of the time. Do some research.

 

I studied economics. I worked with fund managers.

 

Most forecasts are wrong. Both by economists and stockbrokers.

[Sparktrader]

5 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Economists are academics not investors. Most people work for wages. Scientists mostly work for wages. Are they wage slaves, too? You seem to believe that the purpose of economics is about picking winners and losers in the markets. It's not. And you keep on touting nonsense like economists are wrong most of the time. This seems to be consistent with your utter indifference to back up your assertions with facts.

This was confirmed recently by a study into recessions around the world. Of 62 recessions in 2008 and 2009, economists predicted not one of them. Of 88 recessions from 2008 to 2012, economists picked just 11. 

 

https://intheblack.cpaaustralia.com.au/economy/how-accurate-are-economic-forecasts

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/why-economists-get-so-many-of-their-predictions-wrong-20210121-p56vyr.html

For one thing, there is a whole field now of behavorial economics which address the concerns raised by the author. Which somehow he manages to neglect. But it is significant that the original sinner cited in the article is Milton Friedman. He was and still is the economic god cited by economists. In fact his work led to the founding of the right wing field of economics called rational markets. And yes, they failed big time. But they are only a small section of the markets. And the article you cited offers no numbers, no percentages of how often economists get it wrong. So if you think that this is justification for your assertion that "economists are wrong most of the time", then it's time for you to acquaint yourself with some very basic math.

[Sparktrader]

12 .5% strike rate. Wrong 87.5% of the time.