17 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Yes, I'm making good money in the markets....thanks.  But I still despise Trump and hope he gets impeached sooner rather than later. 

Dont thank me. Thank Republican policies of low taxes, regulation, and the willingness to fight against others with mercantile policies

Troll post removed.  

32 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Dont thank me. Thank Republican policies of low taxes, regulation, and the willingness to fight against others with mercantile policies

Actually, I thank President Obama for turning the economy around after the crash of 2008.  You remember the 2008 Financial Crisis...which was caused largely by Republican policies.

Let's stay on topic please and a complete hash of past events isn't going to accomplish that. 

On 30 June, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Thakkar said:

Ana Navarro is a republican pundit I often disagreed with, but her comment of Trump's "Crazy Mika" tweet is right on the button:

 

 

 

 

what an irritating woman!!!!!

12 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

what an irritating woman!!!!!

Yeah. I don't know any misogynist that likes her. She is a confident, educated, outspoken woman—who needs 'em, amitite?

 

T

2 hours ago, Thakkar said:

Yeah. I don't know any misogynist that likes her. She is a confident, educated, outspoken woman—who needs 'em, amitite?

 

T

 

u sure she isn't your twin?

3 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

u sure she isn't your twin?

Everyone says she's the smarter, prettier one.

3 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Everyone says she's the smarter, prettier one.

If it makes you feel any better, I've always thought that you're the smarter, prettier one.

15 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

If it makes you feel any better, I've always thought that you're the smarter, prettier one.

I've always been better appreciated by the more discerning types. But you know how it is: the flashier ones always get the worms.

 

T

16 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

"several trillion more dollars that that were unaccounted for from the army under President Obama" I'm sure you wouldn't just make up a number like that.  So can you please provide the source?

Also, you apparently don't know that Trump proposed slashing the budget of the Inspector Generals Office. You know, the people who uncovered this problem in the first place and are there to keep the government honest. Trump - draining the swamp and filling it with crud.

 

14 hours ago, bushdoctor said:

I can if you can't find it with a google search, but I would prefer you try that first if you don't mind. 

 

Were you able to find the information? 

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Actually, I thank President Obama for turning the economy around after the crash of 2008.  You remember the 2008 Financial Crisis...which was caused largely by Republican policies.

Crash was caused by Freddy and Fanny Mac, Democrat creations, which were buyers of CDOs that , as government entities, they were too stupid to understand. 

 

When the poles in 2008 saw Obama as likely winner, knowing he would kill economy, smart money made a run for it. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Crash was caused by Freddy and Fanny Mac, Democrat creations, which were buyers of CDOs that , as government entities, they were too stupid to understand. 

 

When the poles in 2008 saw Obama as likely winner, knowing he would kill economy, smart money made a run for it. 

 

 

Nope, you're wrong.  In fact, you're way wrong...you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Ever heard of Bear Stearns?  Merril?  Goldman Sachs?  AIG?  I don't have the time to school you, but Obama had nothing to do with the market crashing and for you to suggest that is asinine. 

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Nope, you're wrong.  In fact, you're way wrong...you really have no idea what you're talking about.  Ever heard of Bear Stearns?  Merril?  Goldman Sachs?  AIG?  I don't have the time to school you, but Obama had nothing to do with the market crashing and for you to suggest that is asinine. 

Bear, ML and AIG all lost money. Not Goldman.  That did not cause crash. 

 

Crash was caused by old fashioned New Deal Democratic corruption. Stupid policy

48 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Bear, ML and AIG all lost money. Not Goldman.  That did not cause crash. 

 

Crash was caused by old fashioned New Deal Democratic corruption. Stupid policy

Exactly correct, but the left will never believe or accept that the policies they bullied through was a root cause of the crash.

 

Always be wary when the government is saying it is doing something to help you. You should run (not walk) away from them!

45 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Bear, ML and AIG all lost money. Not Goldman.  That did not cause crash. 

 

Crash was caused by old fashioned New Deal Democratic corruption. Stupid policy

Goldman Sachs was also bailed out by the Feds. That's why they became a bank so as to be able to get that aid. They would have been in much worse shape but they lied about the creditworthiness  Collateralized Debt Obligations and unloaded them on some of their customers. 

As for blaming the crash on New Deal Democratic corruption, this is utter nonsense. The main cause was the lending mortgages to people who shouldn't have been eligible. Sup-prime mortgages. And no, that lending was not caused by the Community Reinvestment Act, that favorite bogeyman of the right. The Act only applied to banks. Not to private mortgage lenders. Of the top 25 financial entities that made sub-prime mortgages, only 1 was subject to the rules of the Community Reinvestment Act. The rest were private lenders.

Socialist Canada, which strictly regulates its banks and lending institutions, had no such problem and sailed through the recession in much better shape than the USA or Europe because of that.

If you want to educate yourself painlessly, watch The Big Short.

57 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

Bear, ML and AIG all lost money. Not Goldman.  That did not cause crash. 

 

Crash was caused by old fashioned New Deal Democratic corruption. Stupid policy

 

Serious question: I'd be very interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.

 

T

2 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Serious question: I'd be very interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.

 

T

Apart from his obsessive animus towards the democratic party, it probably comes from aligning himself with Trump's 180 degree turn on Goldman Sachs. The company he once denounced now has its alumni steering American economic policy.

A step in the right direction to counter the Trump Administration's destructive agenda.

 

An appeals court Monday struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s 90-day suspension of new emission standards on oil and gas wells, a decision that could set back the Trump administration’s broad legal strategy for rolling back Obama-era rules.

51 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

 

Serious question: I'd be very interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion.

 

T

look I don't have time to educate,

 

you guys will never understand business or financial markets.  That's why you're Democrats. - cant make your own money so you need government to take it from someone else and give it to you.

17 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

 

 

you guys will never understand business or financial markets.  That's why you're Democrats. - cant make your own money so you need government to take it from someone else and give it to you.

Tell that to George Soros.

Tell that to Asian Americans and Jewish Americans who overwhelmingly vote Democratic. Or the knowledge workers of Silicon valley who overwhelmingly vote democratic. Tell that to scientist who overwhelmingly vote democratic.

 Look up which states give more to the feds than they take and which take more than they give. The givers are overwhelmingly Blue States. The takers are overwhelmingly Red States.

 

But the fact is, you're wrong about the big Recession, and the facts are clearly arrayed against you. So you come up with some tiresome and dishonest fact-free boilerplate to cover your retreat. 

You've got nothing.

12 minutes ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

look I don't have time to educate,

 

you guys will never understand business or financial markets.  That's why you're Democrats. - cant make your own money so you need government to take it from someone else and give it to you.

 

I wasn't looking for an education. I already have that, thank you. I just needed a good laugh. Too bad you're busy. I'll go ask the people at Alex Jones; they're always good for a chuckle.

 

T

Does anyone still believe in surveys and statistics?

 

 

2 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

Does anyone still believe in surveys and statistics?

 

 

To start with businesses do.  In fact they depend on surveys.

As for statistics, not just business but also science both absolutely depend on statistics. Perhaps these are subjects liberals are better able to understand. Considering that about 90 percent of scientists identify as democrats, this is not so surprising.

Quote

Does anyone still believe in surveys and statistics?

 

That's like asking if anyone believes in hats or the number 5.  Why shouldn't we believe in these things?

 

Statistics is a legitimate branch of mathematics.  As long as methodology is sound and undergoes some sort of peer review to obtain a general consensus, and as long as we're not talking about something that is purposefully underhanded like the infamous John McCain illegitimate black child push-poll, what's the problem with surveys?

A post containing a link to another forum has been removed as well as the reply, it was off topic anyway. 

6 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

Does anyone still believe in surveys and statistics?

 

 

 

Sensible skepticism is a virtue.

Believing only what you want without regard to the facts, is not.

 

Surveys and statistics are a lynchpin of modern economies, government policies, business decisions and, at times, even personal decisions. They are not a precise science but any government, business or economist ignores them at their peril.

 

T

Political surveys are mostly crap. They are only as good as the questions asked, and it's easy to ask questions in such a way as to get the results you want. Manipulation of data is also very common. Recent exit polls for the presidential election for example....almost all of them were way way off. If you want to carefully delve into the questions you may begin to see bias in many surveys. Anyone who doesn't know this already research it. 

8 hours ago, funandsuninbangkok said:

look I don't have time to educate,

 

you guys will never understand business or financial markets.  That's why you're Democrats. - cant make your own money so you need government to take it from someone else and give it to you.

So a guy like Warren Buffet doesn't understand business or financial markets but you do???

I'd say your reality disconnect is as severe as the man-child you support.

31 minutes ago, bushdoctor said:

Political surveys are mostly crap. They are only as good as the questions asked, and it's easy to ask questions in such a way as to get the results you want. Manipulation of data is also very common. Recent exit polls for the presidential election for example....almost all of them were way way off. If you want to carefully delve into the questions you may begin to see bias in many surveys. Anyone who doesn't know this already research it. 

Though all of what you said is true, the fact remains that this is a thread about the affect of Trump  on the image of the US around the world.

  So do you think  surveys concerning the affect  of Trumps affect on the US image have being manipulated and the image of the US has remained the same or has improved during  Trump's administration.

Or that any changes, positive , negative , or neutral occur irrespective of Trump.