Comments 1 - 36 of 36 Search these comments
He notes the lead author of the Moody's report (economist Mark Zandi) is a donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
That sucks ! DO you mean to tell me that he backs up his opinion that Trump would be risky if not downright bad for the country with his money, by contributing essentially to Trump not being elected ?
Tha't shocking ! Corrupt. Oh my God !
No Way Trump will cause a recession
That's true, because he's not even going to be close to being elected. Now if he were ? That's another question. Considering that something like 70% of the U.S. and maybe a higher percentage of those outside the U.S. have an extremely negative view of Trump, it's easy to think that it would be terrible for market psychology alone.
As an ordinary American, I was thinking of flying my jet to my golf course in Scotland this week, which I bought because I believe in America!
Things are changing. You elites are out. The people have spoken and will speak again. There's no way we real Americans will ever support a murderous Clinton dynasty. Go fuck yourselves.
DO you mean to tell me that he backs up his opinion that Trump would be risky if not downright bad for the country with his money, by contributing essentially to Trump not being elected ?
Yup Opinion Polls are rigged with insufferable qualifying partisan opinions.
That disgust people they don't want to say they agree or disagree they just keep hearing pro Liberal talking points. And never get to the issues that concern them. So they hang up. Incomplete polls are not counted. Pro Hillary people are likely to stay on the line because the pollster is singing their song.
That is why the actual single golden question "who would you vote for" poll.
Has been replaced by "opinion polls" they are designed to frustrate the samples they don't want.
If they did single one question polls, "Who would you vote for?" the polls would be much different. But when you ask someone if you think someone is honest or dishonest. There's a whole dialog that gets over looked in that answer. Some may say yes but then go on to put forth their position that their yes answer to a charter flaw question may not be a bad thing in this case. There's so much you can interpret those yes and no questions. But the results don't convey any of the underlying metadata like caveats.
There's no way to sugar coat "Who would you vote for?" it is what it is.
Also when you just ask that one single question like Breitbart did early on last year before November. Trump won unanimously over everyone early on. The polls then evolved into these dishonest disingenuous seedy questions, as a response to Trump's Plurality.
Things are changing. You elites are out. The people have spoken and will speak again. There's no way we real Americans will ever support a murderous Clinton dynasty. Go fuck yourselves.
The polls then evolved into these dishonest disingenuous seedy questions, as a response to Trump's Plurality.
oohhhhhhhh. Now I get it. So that's whats going on. For a second there I thought maybe the problem was that a majority of the people simply don't agree with you.
It's going to be a long ride to November if you're going to doubt Trump the whole way.
I'm hoping the laughs can get me through it, and yes, I actually have faith that America isn't that far gone.
As an ordinary American, I was thinking of flying my jet to my golf course in Scotland this week, which I bought because I believe in America!
I'd do it, because there's a hot red head hoe up in Aberdeen, who I'd like to f'ck!
Things are changing. You elites are out. The people have spoken and will speak again. There's no way we real Americans will ever support a murderous Clinton dynasty. Go fuck yourselves.
It's been how many days since Hillary has been responsible for someone death? That shut seems to happen about as often as terrorist attacks.
Navarro calls that analysis "garbage" and argues that Trump's plan is the best for the economy since Ronald Reagan's. He notes the lead author of the Moody's report (economist Mark Zandi) is a donor to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Let me get this straight. Navarro is a trump supporter and donor who says Zandi's report is wrong because he is a clinton donor. That's certainly providing the point. Let's see.
1. Tax cuts will make the money roll in. Worked for reagan. So much money rolled in the national debt doubled.
2. China will peacefully balance the trade deficit. The same china taking over the entire south china sea? Does Navarro actually live on planet earth?
3. Sure right, there are plenty of american workers out there just waiting to pick lettuce in the broiling sun all day. That's just too funny. Trump is totally full of shit. Getting rid of the illegals would cost Trump and all of Trumps supporters huge amounts of money. Trump certainly knows that. President Trump would do dick about illegals.
Trump's plan is the best for the economy since Ronald Reagan's
With all due respect to Messr. Tenpoundbass, Trump's plan may not be the best but it will undoubtedly be the most Reaganesque:
"Donald Trump’s economic proposals would “massively increase†the national debt over the next decade, according to projections from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget out Sunday. The “Promises and Price Tags†report released by the nonpartisan, non-profit organization found that Trump would add $11.5 trillion to the debt by 2026, while his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton would add $250 billion in the same time period."
Except for the amnesty part. But that may be made up for by the fact that they both dye(d) their hair. Trump gets points for that.
. Considering that something like 70% of the U.S. and maybe a higher percentage of those outside the U.S. have an extremely negative view of Trump, it's easy to think that it would be terrible for market psychology alone.
--------------
The same could be said of Clinton
Tax cuts will save us!
If the cuts aren't working it's because you're not doing it enough!
The same could be said of Clinton
If you were a tool determined to draw false equivalences whenever possible, then you could say that, and normal people would laugh at you or feel sorry for you.
Trump's favorable:unfavorable is 35:59. Hillary Clinton's is 41:55. Both are remarkably bad, yet one of these is not like the other - not even close.
Trump's favorable:unfavorable is 35:59. Hillary Clinton's is 41:55. Both are remarkably bad, yet one of these is not like the other - not even closE
-------------
I see. The difference is a rounding error, or as you would say, not even close. Interesting
Trump would abrogate every treaty, he never used foreign contractors for his merchandise, every gadget and clothing material he ever sold was built by american labor, he means exactly what he says about trade, he ain't pandering goddamit!
Trump's favorable:unfavorable is 35:59. Hillary Clinton's is 41:55. Both are remarkably bad, yet one of these is not like the other - not even closE
-------------
I see. The difference is a rounding error, or as you would say, not even close. Interesting
Damn!
How's the phone banking for Bernie going? Do you like his chances at the convention?
The PA poll sampled 10 Percent MORE Dems then Repubs and Hillary came in +4... This is the same game with many of the other polls the last month. They poll more Dems than Repubs, but the MSM won't tell you that...
Yeah then the sorry ass cunnt only got 4 points ahead.
I'm sure if they just did a unfettered poll with just the one magic question "Hillary or Trump" I'm certain the results would be 60% Hillary and 40% Trump.
But by time November came around more than 20% of those polled were either too young to vote or weren't registered or had no inclination of actually voting. They just thought it was an opinion contest.
Trump's 40% polled would show up, plus the other 20% that weren't polled.
The election will come down to 60/40 Trump.
Regardless what the polls say. I don't even think it's going to a 4X to 5X(like 48.7 to 51.3) it's going to be more like 6X to 3X(65 to 35) spread.
Have you even bothered to ask yourself, why it makes you so mad, that I am too informed to support Clinton?
Its getting weird.
Have you even bothered to ask yourself, why it makes you so mad, that I am too informed to support Clinton?
Its getting weird.
he hasn't even hit Trigglywog mode yet.
Have you even bothered to ask yourself, why it makes you so mad, that I am too informed to support Clinton?
You know who else thinks she's "too informed"?
Clinton, that's who!
Its like The Statists are in constant fear, as if the Dworkin Golem has them and their computers trapped at the bottom of a Buffalo Bill pit.
It puts the Clinton vote, in the basket!
Add up the numbers in any of the polls, and there is slways at least 15% yet undecided. You gotta have some screws loose, if youre counting your chickens before they've hatched, if a 44-39 lead makes you confident.
How will Hillary ever be able to pull in any of the undecideds?
They certainly have to be in play for Trump yet
How will Hillary ever be able to pull in any of the undecideds?
They certainly have to be in play for Trump yet
Yes, because a candidate with 24% net unfavorables definitely has a better chance with undecideds than one with 15% net unfavorables.
Trump will surely pull in those undecideds the same way he got ALL Sanders voters (if you define 20% as "all").
idiotman, if 60% of a state's voters are registered democrat, a poll is likely to have 60% of respondents be registered democrat. If the respondents were 50/50, it would not be a good sample, and it would not be indicative of the election results. You are earning your monitor every day.
What are you going to claim next, that no poll is valid unless 50% of the respondents are black?
Trump's favorable:unfavorable is 35:59. Hillary Clinton's is 41:55. Both are remarkably bad, yet one of these is not like the other - not even close.
No Way Trump will cause a recession
That's true, because he's not even going to be close to being elected. Now if he were ? That's another question. Considering that something like 70% of the U.S. and maybe a higher percentage of those outside the U.S. have an extremely negative view of Trump, it's easy to think that it would be terrible for market psychology alone.
marcus saysNo Way Trump will cause a recession
That's true, because he's not even going to be close to being elected. Now if he were ? That's another question. Considering that something like 70% of the U.S. and maybe a higher percentage of those outside the U.S. have an extremely negative view of Trump, it's easy to think that it would be terrible for market psychology alone.
Don't know what to say. I'm still laughing.
I revised how I viewed the housing market after being so incorrect in my long term prognostications I posted a decade ago.
Bobbo, cabroncito, and Marcus may want to go back to jc and take Econ 101 and 102 along with Money and Banking.
If my fundamental understanding of the economy was so miserably incorrect, I certainly would try to re educate myself.
Ever since Trump won the election I have been like most people:
Safer
Richer
Happier
Redundant breaking news.
Obama & Clinton aren't President in 2018. Democrats aren't in charge.
Trump/Republicans are in charge!
It's all on them!
7,000,000 are paying more taxes due to the Republicans(fucking Socialists) tax increase.
Wonder how they will vote? How many will take this theft lying down?
Getting into someone's wallet will get their attention.
How much will the natl. debt increase in the next couple of years?
How much will the natl. debt increase in the next couple of years?
Oh! Wait! Not caring makes the debt disappear.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/27/news/economy/donald-trump-economy/index.html?iid=hp-grid-dom