Joe Biden bravely and openly proclaims his own damnation.


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Current news:

There were more American flags on display on Trump's visit to India, than there were at last night's Democratic debate. 

image.jpeg.d308b81fe114eeb4021c91992eba117a.jpegimage.jpeg.888e219863642ca1283c1b32dc5808b0.jpeg

image.jpeg.af64c2aa4be7eefd6a559a3a61e2f576.jpegimage.jpeg.8f22a08ff5faa88ab59d04da2e720660.jpegimage.jpeg.98f8b835def1f151f4c89fb8eb52bdb3.jpeg

 

That's because Democrats are superior human beings, and thus understand that the sight of Old Glory might trigger some poor, sensitive souls and offend many other brave people, both Americans and others who have a vote in this year's elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"How can you vote for Trump?"   Here's a line representing the health of retirement funds for me and wife.  The red line is when we knew he'd be president. 

image.png.a526f8cdc0aa6413110437a6a918518b.png

Wanna guess what that line would have looked like with Pres. Hillary?  Wanna guess what it'll look like in the future if we have President Sanders?

That line is also reflective of our ability to send our kids to college.  And keep our cars running and our bills paid.  And keep my wife in turkeys and special-needs chickens.

The Dems are in a hard spot.  It's hard to get people to vote against their own pocketbook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

The Dems are in a hard spot.  It's hard to get people to vote against their own pocketbook.

And that's why their campaigns are laser focused no getting people to vote to move money from someone else's pocketbook into their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many things in life are hard for me to understand.  Regardless of how stupid something is - it seams that someone will not only believe it but that they are willing to die on a battle field for it.  Sometimes it seams that the dumber it is - the more the masses will argue for it????

I agree with Churchill - Democracy is the worse kind of government ever invented by man - that is with the exception all the others.

It seems to me that regardless of how good something is; someone will figure a way to screw it up.

A great problem with socialism - Those that would have free health care - have never had a serious need and received health care from a free clinic.  Anyone that would have free college education - have never sat through a class or attended a college with free tuition. 

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
On 2/26/2020 at 1:49 PM, NeuroTypical said:

"How can you vote for Trump?"   Here's a line representing the health of retirement funds for me and wife.  The red line is when we knew he'd be president. 

image.png.a526f8cdc0aa6413110437a6a918518b.png

Wanna guess what that line would have looked like with Pres. Hillary?  Wanna guess what it'll look like in the future if we have President Sanders?

That line is also reflective of our ability to send our kids to college.  And keep our cars running and our bills paid.  And keep my wife in turkeys and special-needs chickens.

The Dems are in a hard spot.  It's hard to get people to vote against their own pocketbook.

For several years, I have been tracking the DOW per president.    I update my spreadsheet on a regular basis:

dow.JPG.277092577f35c87dde1a687488afe80f.JPG

I don't think it would do as well under Sanders though.  Hillary?  Hard to say.

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott said:

For several years, I have been tracking the DOW per president.    I update my spreadsheet on a regular basis:

dow.JPG.277092577f35c87dde1a687488afe80f.JPG

I don't think it would do as well under Sanders though.  Hillary?  Hard to say.

Say, what was Trump’s percentage before last week’s coronacrash?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
58 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Say, what was Trump’s percentage before last week’s coronacrash?

Excellent question.   This would be just prior to the crash.   I believe the Coronacrash is temporary so the chart will be more meaningful after the Coronacrash is over.  Still, some interesting numbers.   

2075034403_dow2.JPG.f2ce28ce3baeeaaffa1fb36b6b9604e2.JPG

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
Just now, Vort said:

Can you extend that back to cover Reagan and Carter?

Sure, but not right this second.  If you are wondering why I started at Bush 1, it is because that is when I started investing money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott said:

For several years, I have been tracking the DOW per president.    I update my spreadsheet on a regular basis:

dow.JPG.277092577f35c87dde1a687488afe80f.JPG

Before I comment, I need to say that you have some good points.  But for the sake of accuracy, I need to point out the bad ones.  This is not only bad math, but it is misrepresenting the numbers and context of the market for those presidencies.

First, Your numbers are based on linear growth. Investments are calculated on an exponential annualized growth rate.  My numbers shown here are based on exponential growth rate.

Second, Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples.  Best presidents to Best presidents and worst to worst.  Reagan beats out Clinton. 

DJIA.JPG.58e2a392f5d6243022c0bde180443913.JPG

Third, you're only looking at discrete points rather than overall patterns.  Take a look at the patterns.  The individual points you've chosen seems reasonable on the surface (inauguration day).  But looking at overall patterns and proper context shows that you're not being fair to the presidents.

Chart.thumb.jpg.579a3c38fac133a59cad45113a375f0f.jpg

While there is no doubt that the economy is tremendously impacted by the president's leadership and economic policies, it is not the only thing.  When certain events occur (like this past week's acitvity) we have to give credit where credit is due. 

When taking this all into account, Bush 2 and Obama were about dead even.  Carter was the worst.  Notice that even with all the advantages that Obama had, he only beat out Trump by 1%.

While we can agree that Trump's DJIA numbers are not as high as Clinton's, the other economic indicators are much better (unemployment, employment, GDP, inflation rates, etc.)  And, let's not forget that while I'll admit that Clinton did a pretty good job from an economic policy stand point, he also had a couple aces that the others did not have -- introducing the Roth IRA and the income tax on Social Security benefits -- both of which greatly changed the economy for the last several years of his presidency.

One note:  the slopes of the lines are not dependable since the y-axis is logarithmic.  But flat lines are flat lines.

Edited by Vernor's Ginger Ale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
53 minutes ago, Vernor's Ginger Ale said:

First, Your numbers are based on linear growth.

Yes they are.  I did not create this speadsheet specifically for this forum post.  Linear growth = put one dollar in; the market goes up 100%;  my dollar investment is now worth $2.

Quote

 

Second, Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples.  Best presidents to Best presidents and worst to worst.  Reagan beats out Clinton. 

DJIA.JPG.58e2a392f5d6243022c0bde180443913.JPG

 

I didn't mention Reagan at all.  I was born in 1974.   Reagan is irrelevant to any money I have invested.   I stated investing at age ~15 1/2 (January 1990) when I started working at McDonalds (I grew up in a low income area and had to do my investing/saving myself).   It would still be interesting to compare all presidents though; but I haven't got around to it.

Quote

Third, you're only looking at discrete points rather than overall patterns. 

Yes of course.   I did not analyze every single drop and rise; only compared starts of presidencies to end of presidencies.  If you want to do otherwise; that would be great.

Quote

 

Take a look at the patterns.  The individual points you've chosen seems reasonable on the surface (inauguration day).  But looking at overall patterns and proper context shows that you're not being fair to the presidents.

Chart.thumb.jpg.579a3c38fac133a59cad45113a375f0f.jpg

 

 

I kept it simple; DOW at start of presidency and DOW at end.  
 

Quote

While there is no doubt that the economy is tremendously impacted by the president's leadership and economic policies, it is not the only thing.  When certain events occur (like this past week's acitvity) we have to give credit where credit is due. 

I agree.   Corona virus, for example, was and is not Trumps fault.  

If anything, I think the presidents have a lot less to do with the economy than people admit.  

I don't think Bush 2 should be blamed more than partially for the crash under his presidency either.  The American people share a lot of the blame.   People were borrowing and spending more money than they had and banks (among other things) were loaning money out without enough collateral.  There were a lot of commercials out saying that you could borrow 125% of your home value etc.
 

Quote

When taking this all into account, Bush 2 and Obama were about dead even. 

This I don't agree with.   How are Obama and Bush 2 dead even?  

Quote

While we can agree that Trump's DJIA numbers are not as high as Clinton's, the other economic indicators are much better (unemployment, employment, GDP, inflation rates, etc.) 

The drop (or rise) in unemployment rates, and inflation rates, and GDP during the presidency would be more meaningful as an economic indicator.

PS, how did you create that graph?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Vernor's Ginger Ale said:

Before I comment, I need to say that you have some good points.  But for the sake of accuracy, I need to point out the bad ones.  This is not only bad math, but it is misrepresenting the numbers and context of the market for those presidencies.

First, Your numbers are based on linear growth. Investments are calculated on an exponential annualized growth rate.  My numbers shown here are based on exponential growth rate.

Second, Let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples.  Best presidents to Best presidents and worst to worst.  Reagan beats out Clinton. 

DJIA.JPG.58e2a392f5d6243022c0bde180443913.JPG

Third, you're only looking at discrete points rather than overall patterns.  Take a look at the patterns.  The individual points you've chosen seems reasonable on the surface (inauguration day).  But looking at overall patterns and proper context shows that you're not being fair to the presidents.

Chart.thumb.jpg.579a3c38fac133a59cad45113a375f0f.jpg

While there is no doubt that the economy is tremendously impacted by the president's leadership and economic policies, it is not the only thing.  When certain events occur (like this past week's acitvity) we have to give credit where credit is due. 

When taking this all into account, Bush 2 and Obama were about dead even.  Carter was the worst.  Notice that even with all the advantages that Obama had, he only beat out Trump by 1%.

While we can agree that Trump's DJIA numbers are not as high as Clinton's, the other economic indicators are much better (unemployment, employment, GDP, inflation rates, etc.)  And, let's not forget that while I'll admit that Clinton did a pretty good job from an economic policy stand point, he also had a couple aces that the others did not have -- introducing the Roth IRA and the income tax on Social Security benefits -- both of which greatly changed the economy for the last several years of his presidency.

One note:  the slopes of the lines are not dependable since the y-axis is logarithmic.  But flat lines are flat lines.

Great points VGA.  I'll just chime in with a couple points:

1.)  The housing market bubble was visible from miles away all throughout W's presidency.  They kept ignoring it.

2.)  Also, the tech bubble from Clinton to W was also visible from miles away (as you pointed out). 

3.)  The Clinton Economy was more about Bill Gates than Bill Clinton.  It took a while for the government to fight to tether the brand spanking new information superhighway paradigm.  The government tried and tried but the electronic Wild West is too free to be denied especially when you got teetering old boomers on levers of Congress.  Thank you, Ajit Pai.

4.)  The economic jenga of the Chinese trade imbalance was also visible from miles away.  They kept ignoring it.  Until Trump.  Just in time.

5.)  If you want to be known as the best economic President to the normies, just take over a bursting bubble economy, push it as low as it can go as fast you can, and enjoy the ride of the natural upchuck.  

And that's all I have to say about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

He will be difficult for Trump to defeat. 

We'll see how he fares in the debates.  His Bidenisms are getting dumber as time goes on.  Armchair diagnoses of early onset alzheimers.  Introducing his sister as his wife, flubbing names and places and dates.  When Bush I ran, everyone made dang sure we knew serious and experienced Dick Cheney was Veep, and would handle all the hard thinking.  "The most powerful VP in history", they called him.  For Biden to have a chance, they'll need something similar to reassure left voters that the stuttering old guy falling asleep in that chair, has someone running America in the background. 

Plus, this:

BidenBurisma.thumb.png.1168737e248496358ea3eebe18b5c5d3.png

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Armchair diagnoses of early onset alzheimers.

That's pretty harsh when you think about it. Unless you (generic) are a medical doctor who has sat down with him, it's probably best to avoid throwing that around. 

I would never vote for Biden, but I've seen this movie before. Where one side becomes fat and arrogant, forgetting how challenging elections really are. Sure, it's easy for all of to say "Ha ha we all knew Trump would win in 2016." but the reality is that few of us did. I sure didn't, and I get the feeling that the majority of political junkies (and I'm one of them, obviously) didn't think Trump stood a chance either.  But now, everyone will lie and say "Oh yes, I always knew he'd win.'

My concern is that Biden will appeal to the suburban moms who might have been afraid of the socialism of Bernie Sanders but are incredibly turned off by Trumps foul mouth and  treatment of women. 

Again, just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for Biden at gunpoint. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

That's pretty harsh when you think about it. Unless you (generic) are a medical doctor who has sat down with him, it's probably best to avoid throwing that around. 

I would never vote for Biden, but I've seen this movie before. Where one side becomes fat and arrogant, forgetting how challenging elections really are. Sure, it's easy for all of to say "Ha ha we all knew Trump would win in 2016." but the reality is that few of us did. I sure didn't, and I get the feeling that the majority of political junkies (and I'm one of them, obviously) didn't think Trump stood a chance either. 

My concern is that Biden will appeal to the suburban moms who might have been afraid of the socialism of Bernie Sanders but are incredibly turned off by Trumps foul mouth and  treatment of women. 

Again, just to be clear, I wouldn't vote for Biden at gunpoint. 

Those suburban moms are not as many as 75% of the under-30 Democrats who will not vote for the same establishment idiots they're "revolutionizing" against.  Unless Biden does something to keep those people engaged and voting Democrat, he'll have a hard time balancing out Trump's inroads into the minority block that has consistently voted 90% Democrat in addition to the non-Republican young Trumpers.  The Never Trumper wing of the Republican voting public is almost non-existent at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
13 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Armchair diagnoses of early onset alzheimers.

That's pretty harsh when you think about it. Unless you (generic) are a medical doctor who has sat down with him, it's probably best to avoid throwing that around. 

That's fair.  To be clear, I'm not making any armchair diagnoses, I'm mentioning those who are, and opining that it'll worry enough people, that he'll need a strong running mate to counter his own continuing flubs.  Bush I made it despite the image of a clueless kid, we'll see what happens when the image is that of a dottering old guy who is only getting older.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's fair.  To be clear, I'm not making any armchair diagnoses,

Oh I know, I wasn't referring to "you" as in NT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

That's fair.  To be clear, I'm not making any armchair diagnoses, I'm mentioning those who are, and opining that it'll worry enough people, that he'll need a strong running mate to counter his own continuing flubs.  Bush I made it despite the image of a clueless kid, we'll see what happens when the image is that of a dottering old guy who is only getting older.

The way this election is shaping up... there are only 2 choices - Trump and Not-Trump.  You can put a potato on the Not-Trump side, he'll still get the vote because he's Not-Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The way this election is shaping up... there are only 2 choices - Trump and Not-Trump.  You can put a potato on the Not-Trump side, he'll still get the vote because he's Not-Trump.

If Sanders wins the nomination, then I disagree. The choice will be communist vs. not-a-communist. And at least in this, the early part of the 21st century, not-a-communist will still win out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share