The Banana Republic is at it again

[BubberMiley]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I just assume that certain people watch CNN, MSNBC, etc, based on the types of things they say. Like for example, when they say that the stock market is down when it is actually 33% higher than it has ever been. That's a CCNer type of comment. Not a lot of other people tend to say such ridiculous things, such obvious falsehoods.

https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years

There ya go. You just have to look at it, and the info is right there for you to see. No speculation, no guesswork, no denying. Just an actual fact staring you right in the face.

I was talking about this week, not the significant gains it has made since Obama became president.

[WestCanMan]

On 12/7/2018 at 9:45 AM, BubberMiley said:

I can see why you wouldn't want to include a citation with your data, since you just made it up.  Unfortunately, two-thirds of U.S. terrorism can be blamed on right wing extremists. I suppose though that, like with climate change, no objective data will sway your unfounded opinions.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/09/12/study-shows-two-thirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

I can’t believe that you would even post a link to such a stupid article. Is graffiti on a car really a terrorist attack? Is that a “1” just like the Pulse night club attack was a “1” in your world? OMG we need to ban spray paint. Save us bubber.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States

There’s the list of terrorist attacks in the US in case you ever get sick of myopic left-wing opinion-based articles or a desire to look at some facts.

The Vegas attack wasn’t even on that list the last time I checked, but that attack was directly on a crowd of people that one would suspect are primarily right wing. There was another attack on a country music venue recently. Seems like you’re 100% wrong again bubber. I doubt you really care though.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 12/7/2018 at 1:06 PM, BubberMiley said:

I was talking about this week, not the significant gains it has made since Obama became president.

A one week fluctuation in the stock market is hardly an indictment against the President.

That’s the epitome of a small sample size being used against a data set that’s a couple orders of magnitude larger.

FYI the market is actually down because Trump is standing up to China. Even lyin Chuck Schumer supports Trump’s stance against Chinese intellectual property theft, etc. 

[BubberMiley]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

A one week fluctuation in the stock market is hardly an indictment against the President.

That’s the epitome of a small sample size being used against a data set that’s a couple orders of magnitude larger.

FYI the market is actually down because Trump is standing up to China. Even lyin Chuck Schumer supports Trump’s stance against Chinese intellectual property theft, etc. 

Tariffs have nothing to do with it?

Why do you call Chuck Schumer a liar? Or you just heard Trump say it, so you thought it must be cool? Lol

[Boges]

In most cases a one week correction in the market wouldn't be the President's fault. Though, as I mentioned in another thread, this President has seen the four largest one day drops in the DOW's History come on his watch. 

Last week's correction was a direct response to his hyperbole towards China. 

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Tariffs have nothing to do with it?

Why do you call Chuck Schumer a liar? Or you just heard Trump say it, so you thought it must be cool? Lol

I never said that tariffs have nothing to do with anything. Of course they have an impact on the stock market and everything else. The stock market is up by 33% overall. So for one week it took a correction off of that amount. Big deal. It still dwarfs the stock market's performance under Obama. 

If you got a 33% raise at work would you focus on the extra taxes you have to pay? No, but you're focusing on a small negative in a sea of positivity regarding employment numbers and stock prices.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, Boges said:

In most cases a one week correction in the market wouldn't be the President's fault. Though, as I mentioned in another thread, this President has seen the four largest one day drops in the DOW's History come on his watch. 

Last week's correction was a direct response to his hyperbole towards China. 

Is it hyperbole towards China?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/what-s-intellectual-property-and-does-china-steal-it-quicktake

[WestCanMan]

Some interesting info about Huawei.

https://business.financialpost.com/technology/huaweis-ceo-built-an-empire-trump-could-tear-it-down?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2CvUrov27JX4_bKybIzQiyQL_JPJ1HB_ONbBfP5Gi2gFmDkX5Xn9L__lM#Echobox=1544469099

Check out this quote from the article:

Quote

The deaths triggered a revision of the company policy on overtime, and the creation of a chief health and safety officer role.

Still think your job sucks? Lol. 

[WestCanMan]

FWIW, whenever I see the thread title referencing "The Banana Republic", I keep thinking it's about the fact that the leader of the Democrat Party started an investigation into a political adversary without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed.

Normally you start out with a crime and figure out who did it. When you start investigating a person just to see if you can find out if they committed any crimes, you risk drawing comparisons to Lavrentiy Beria.

https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/ 

 

[Boges]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Is it hyperbole towards China?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/what-s-intellectual-property-and-does-china-steal-it-quicktake

Well it's the disagreement between's Trump's rosy assessment of the meeting and China's skeptical assessment. 

[BubberMiley]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:16 PM, WestCanMan said:

FWIW, whenever I see the thread title referencing "The Banana Republic", I keep thinking it's about the fact that the leader of the Democrat Party started an investigation into a political adversary without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed.

Normally you start out with a crime and figure out who did it. When you start investigating a person just to see if you can find out if they committed any crimes, you risk drawing comparisons to Lavrentiy Beria.

https://www.oxfordeagle.com/2018/05/09/show-me-the-man-and-ill-show-you-the-crime/ 

 

Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, BubberMiley said:

Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?

 

Chuck Pelosi? 

[BubberMiley]

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Chuck Pelosi? 

Yeah, I'm not sure either. It's a sure sign he's spewing BS, I guess, when he's referring to people that don't exist and blaming them for doing police investigations they wouldn't be in control of if they did exist.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

Who's the leader of the Democratic Party?

Who said anything about the Democratic party? You need some glasses son.

[BubberMiley]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 6:16 PM, WestCanMan said:

 I keep thinking it's about the fact that the leader of the Democrat Party started an investigation into a political adversary without any actual evidence that a crime had been committed.

You did. Here. I guess you realized you were mistaken and decided to deny, deny, deny instead of admitting you're wrong (a popular characteristic among your lot).

[Boges]

This weekend Trump opined that SNL's parody of him, and his family, should be "Tested in Court". 

If that doesn't sound like a despot dictator, that's opposed to Free Speech, I don't know what does. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, BubberMiley said:

You did. Here. I guess you realized you were mistaken and decided to deny, deny, deny instead of admitting you're wrong (a popular characteristic among your lot).

There was evidence of a crime before Hillary was ever investigated. Then Hillary and her people lied to the FBI. Then they destroyed evidence that had been subpoenaed. Then her husband “coincidentally” ended up on the same tarmac as Loretta Lynch two days before the end of her investigation but they just talked about their grand kids. 

You know which one of those things that I just said was lie? The part about the grand kids. Bill doesn’t even have any. 

You know what’s characteristic of your lot? Saying baa and believing everything you see on CNN. 

Edited December 17, 2018 by WestCanMan

[BubberMiley]

45 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

There was evidence of a crime before Hillary was ever investigated. Then Hillary and her people lied to the FBI. Then they destroyed evidence that had been subpoenaed. Then her husband “coincidentally” ended up on the same tarmac as Loretta Lynch two days before the end of her investigation but they just talked about their grand kids. 

You know which one of those things that I just said was lie? The part about the grand kids. Bill doesn’t even have any. 

You know what’s characteristic of your lot? Saying baa and believing everything you see on CNN. 

They investigated Hillary and questioned her under oath for hours and found nothing.

They questioned Trump's people under oath and that largely resulted in them going to jail for lying under oath.

[WestCanMan]

5 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

They investigated Hillary and questioned her under oath for hours and found nothing.

They questioned Trump's people under oath and that largely resulted in them going to jail for lying under oath.

Hillary gave no answers. She said that she couldn't remember anything over and over because "she hit her head" during the Presidential campaign. She didn't seem unable to answer questions at the debates though.

Hillary's people weren't even questioned under oath, most weren't even questioned at all, but the ones who were questioned were caught lying. Comey had her exoneration letter written months before he jumped the gun and cleared her all by himself when that decision was above his pay grade. Comey even had in his original statement that she was grossly negligent (felony) and changed the wording to "extremely careless", because the exact legal definition for the felony charge is "grossly negligent".

Is destroying subpoenaed evidence worse than answering a question incorrectly while under oath Bubber?