More negative impact from having an evil populist in power
The speculation is that won’t last. A 2 month victory in the stock market is meaningless in the long run. Plus if the market does do well, its mostly the rich benefiting at least that’s how the dems will spin it. When the market did good under Obama it was him improving the economy, now it will be the rich getting richer since they own the most stock percentage.
I know this won’t surprise you, but I’m aware of several examples of skewed data, selective interpretation of data, or outright junk science being repeated by prominent Dems and Reps, and even showing up on official White House web pages.
This is David Neumark, and expert on the minimum wage who gets quoted by the NYT, and the WSJ, and who get interviewed by NPR all the time. He’s not a journalist or a politician.
Please go to minute marker 18:30 for just one example of misinformation, or untruths showing up in “facts” put out by the Obama White House.
You can find similar examples of junky conclusions, or skewed information regarding both the ACA and climate change. I know you probably realize this, but the much repeated “97% consensus” number has been taken from a junky, and limited survey and then presented with claims that are not at all warranted by other data as a whole, or by the survey itself. Some of the quotes from the President using that number are not held up by the science. That kind of thing needs to be taken down. You would NEVER stake your reputation as a statistician on that number, and the way it’s been used on official White House documents.
You can look at an article I put up on Mufasa’s ACA page to see numbers inflated by the Obama administration to talk about people with preexisting conditions, or people who are likely to loose their insurance if the ACA is pulled back. I believe it’s the very last post in that thread. It’s worth a look. It certainly made me skeptical. I’m not sure those numbers belong in official White House information.
I know I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but Trump did not invent “Alternative Facts.” He’s really good at using them, or just making up ridiculous stuff on the fly, but we can find numerous cases where other politicians have done the same. I can’t recall the study now, but Hillary Clinton repeatedly quoted a study from Princeton or Stanford so support some of her campaign claims. It was an outlier, and not representative of what was really happening and she got called on it. With regard to Trump’s crazy use of “facts” I can’t decide if he’s a genius who is trolling the media, and being super successful getting them to run around fact checking irrelevant details, or if he’s just an idiot who makes stuff up.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
I trust NASA. You should too.
2 Likes
Obama must have been the Financial God King 
seeing as the Dow went from 12,600 - 19,800 over the last 5 years…
2 Likes
Great post!
Honestly, I still believe that the best solution is to not acknowledge race at all. A person is a person and that is it. But we cannot seem to get there and I don’t know why. It’s one ‘side’ or another always protesting this or that, fans the flames and then shit happens.
I wonder how a media blackout would work. Just a moratorium on reporting anything race related for a period of time and see if tensions would calm down?
What do you think? Or would it just suppress problems, rather than help?
I tend to think the media intentionally fans these flames. Race problems are guaranteed viewership. I have long held the belief they intentionally fan the flames to fatten the bottom line. It begs the question, how much does media coverage affect the issue.
In my day to day existence, racism is virtually non-existent. People of all creeds mosey around doing their thing and nobody bothers anybody, save to hold a door or have a friendly conversation. That’s a micro-view where I tool around. That wasn’t always the case…
You’re not giving the FGK enough credit–the DOW was ~6600 in early 2009.
http://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years
So unless it goes up 200% under Trump they can say Obama did better?
Sure. In fact, it’s probably closer to 100% consensus if we’re just talking about human activity effecting climate change. IF the President stuck to this statement, signed off by the scientific associations listed in the NASA website, we’d have much less of a divide.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)2
You can go look up quotes about the 97% number and what he’s said it means. Climate scientists do not agree on the severity, the meaning or magnitude of the problem, or the solutions. He’s made some big leaps that are NOT warranted by anything in the NASA information.
1 Like
Lol, I guess, if you think the Dow’s performance is directly tied to the administration anyway.
I don’t but I constantly hear it cited as one of Obama’s accomplishments, which means the opposite will be true when citing Trumps failures.
It roughly tripled on Obama’s watch–surely a businessman as bigly as Trump can do at least as well? So, if the Dow doesn’t hit 60K, his presidency is a failure.
1 Like
Ya… I expect the level of hypocrisy over the course of the next 4-8 years to be hilariously high.
2 Likes
I tell you what, though, if Trump can grow GDP by 4+% (like he claims) then I’ll be impressed.
Since we agree they’re a trusted source, here’s what NASA says should be done about it:
Don’t forget about low gas prices. Another #accomplishment
I expect gas to be under $1.00 then
1 Like
We had a climate change thread going a while back when you weren’t around. @Aragon was pretty informed and I find it to be an interesting topic due to the intense opinions. We could take the derail there if you want to discuss.
1 Like