Conspiracy Facts-Now we know what “Covid 19” was really about.

Perhaps it's just me, but I feel as though racial tensions are at an all-time high. And, Trump has not done enough to castigate the white is right crowd. Those morons are part of his base and he knows it. That's why he flip-flopped in his comments criticizing those who were present at the Charlottesville protests. Trump brings that upon himself, and I have no sympathy for stupidity and lack of insight. Take his criticism of Nascar for the removal and ban on the Confederate flag. It's not his place, but he says these things to curry favour with that class of neanderthal voters. There's no class or leadership there, a great leader forms coalitions, demonstrates strength through empathy and compassion, and builds bridges in the face of adversity. Trump is shallow, petty, and fails at every level of leadership.

People are too quick to forget how much Obama did for the U.S. He took that country at the worst time since the great depression and turned things around. His presidency was challenging from the very beginning, but he had to settle and withdraw from a war he did not start.

Why not compare Obama's presidency at the end of 2015 to Trump at the end of 2019?
At the end of Obama's second term he had created 11.8 million jobs.
At the end of 2019, employment had increased by 5 million.

Unemployment under Obama decreased by 4.7%, Trump, by 3.8%.

To expand on that,
The unemployment rate at the beginning of Obama's first term, when the financial crisis was at its worst, was 7.8, and it peaked at 10% in Oct 09, before ending at 4.7%. His presidency coincided with the second largest decrease in unemployment in history. Second only to Kennedy/LBJ.

There was an increase of 105% new jobs under Obama, but only 26% under Trump.

Corporate profits rose 55% under Obama, only 12% under Trump (recall the Trade war, more on that later..)

GDP under Trump only grew by 1.6% in 2016, 2.2% in 2017, and in 2018 he managed to get it back to where is was when Obama left office.

The number of people without health insurance decreased by 15 million under Obama, it is increased by 1 million under Trump.

About that trade war, and tax cuts, b/c he's so good at sticking it to other countries, right?

The greatest tax cut benefits will be to corporate profits, investment income, estate taxes, and financial service companies. These are most advantageous to the wealthy.

Trump's trade negotiations cost consumers and U.S. companies more than 40B, and reduced economic growth by nearly 0.5%. Farmers required 28B in federal bailout money.
Who really pays for the import tariffs? U.S. consumers. There was a total of $250B in tariffs imposed by Trump, but this has barely impacted imports b/c it's still far more expensive to produce those goods domestically, so U.S. consumers have to suck it up and pay more.

Remarkable job you fat orange-faced fuck.

It seems fair for me to assume you do not actually take time and watch trumps speeches, round table meetings, rallies, etc. For yourself. Your version of what he does sounds very much like the version the left media pushes. But whatever, you are not the only one falling for it. Hopefully more people will wake up and see what the media is up to before its too late.
And for division and hate and the race war, again the media is responsible. Not Trump. If its Trumps fault for USA, then why not go after Justin here? Its the left that are taking to the media to make people fight. Takes the heat off them.
 
Perhaps it's just me, but I feel as though racial tensions are at an all-time high. And, Trump has not done enough to castigate the white is right crowd. Those morons are part of his base and he knows it. That's why he flip-flopped in his comments criticizing those who were present at the Charlottesville protests. Trump brings that upon himself, and I have no sympathy for stupidity and lack of insight. Take his criticism of Nascar for the removal and ban on the Confederate flag. It's not his place, but he says these things to curry favour with that class of neanderthal voters. There's no class or leadership there, a great leader forms coalitions, demonstrates strength through empathy and compassion, and builds bridges in the face of adversity. Trump is shallow, petty, and fails at every level of leadership.

People are too quick to forget how much Obama did for the U.S. He took that country at the worst time since the great depression and turned things around. His presidency was challenging from the very beginning, but he had to settle and withdraw from a war he did not start.

Why not compare Obama's presidency at the end of 2015 to Trump at the end of 2019?
At the end of Obama's second term he had created 11.8 million jobs.
At the end of 2019, employment had increased by 5 million.

Unemployment under Obama decreased by 4.7%, Trump, by 3.8%.

To expand on that,
The unemployment rate at the beginning of Obama's first term, when the financial crisis was at its worst, was 7.8, and it peaked at 10% in Oct 09, before ending at 4.7%. His presidency coincided with the second largest decrease in unemployment in history. Second only to Kennedy/LBJ.

There was an increase of 105% new jobs under Obama, but only 26% under Trump.

Corporate profits rose 55% under Obama, only 12% under Trump (recall the Trade war, more on that later..)

GDP under Trump only grew by 1.6% in 2016, 2.2% in 2017, and in 2018 he managed to get it back to where is was when Obama left office.

The number of people without health insurance decreased by 15 million under Obama, it is increased by 1 million under Trump.

About that trade war, and tax cuts, b/c he's so good at sticking it to other countries, right?

The greatest tax cut benefits will be to corporate profits, investment income, estate taxes, and financial service companies. These are most advantageous to the wealthy.

Trump's trade negotiations cost consumers and U.S. companies more than 40B, and reduced economic growth by nearly 0.5%. Farmers required 28B in federal bailout money.
Who really pays for the import tariffs? U.S. consumers. There was a total of $250B in tariffs imposed by Trump, but this has barely impacted imports b/c it's still far more expensive to produce those goods domestically, so U.S. consumers have to suck it up and pay more.

Remarkable job you fat orange-faced fuck.
This fucking post has so much uninformed and distorted data that
1)I dont have time right now
2)It is so obvious that you need to quit CNN and start reading Breitbart for the facts.
I will get back to this bullshit tomorrow.
 
It seems fair for me to assume you do not actually take time and watch trumps speeches, round table meetings, rallies, etc. For yourself. Your version of what he does sounds very much like the version the left media pushes. But whatever, you are not the only one falling for it. Hopefully more people will wake up and see what the media is up to before its too late.
And for division and hate and the race war, again the media is responsible. Not Trump. If its Trumps fault for USA, then why not go after Justin here? Its the left that are taking to the media to make people fight. Takes the heat off them.

Media spin aside, economic data is economic data. Those are hard facts. So, the left it responsible for lower gdp growth, lower trade deficits, as well as poorer consumer purchasing power? Before Trump the U.S. had a trade surplus of around 80B with Canada, that's been nearly wiped out.

If he actually performed as an steward of the U.S. economy, as he claims he has I would give credit, but he hasn't. He's not making anything great, that's my point. I've watched his rallies and have read his speeches, I don't know what you're seeing, but some people go for that hoo-rah crap. Do you have alternative/contradictory economic numbers?
 
Media spin aside, economic data is economic data. Those are hard facts. So, the left it responsible for lower gdp growth, lower trade deficits, as well as poorer consumer purchasing power? Before Trump the U.S. had a trade surplus of around 80B with Canada, that's been nearly wiped out.

If he actually performed as an steward of the U.S. economy, as he claims he has I would give credit, but he hasn't. He's not making anything great, that's my point. I've watched his rallies and have read his speeches, I don't know what you're seeing, but some people go for that hoo-rah crap. Do you have alternative/contradictory economic numbers?

What hoo-rah crap? His speeches are not divisive. Not at all. Then you have the media telling people whitey must die, and somehow that makes trump the great divider.
Where exactly do you collect these “hard facts” on their economy? Serious question. And you think he is setting the usa to lose in his trade deals??
 
It's not so much that he's setting the U.S. up to lose, but basic economics has proven that tariffs are never a net win. The impact is always passed on to consumers, and sectors most affected require subsidies, which is a further drag on growth and a tax on the consumer in the form of increasing national debt obligations. I don't believe the tariffs will amount to a net benefit. It might decrease the deficit with China, but while China is feeling the effects of their own tariffs, guess who is taking up the slack? Vietnam, Mexico, and (I can't remember the third), but they have been the greatest beneficiaries of the tariffs, as their trade with the U.S. has increased.

As for the facts you only need to look at reliable sources. Forbes, BBC, and Business Insider can provide you with summaries, all of which use data collected by the U.S. departments listed. If you want the raw data, go straight to the source. U.S. Bureau Labour of Statistics, Census Bureau, Treasury Department, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis are excellent sources. All the above data was drawn from those agencies. If you would like to dispute its credibility have at 'er.

I also like to view continuous trends. Anyone can say their administration decreased/increased x by y%, but when you see charts that show the data over a multi-year period you can observe trends. Take the following as an example.


The charts from this article are not what I based my previous assertion upon, they merely paint a picture. Trump, for the most part, has benefited from the policies and progress made by Obama. That much is an indisputable fact. I would not post any data that is not based on official U.S. gov't sources, and I don't care what any talking head on any program has to say.

Obama was far from perfect, I will admit that. But, who is?
 
It's not so much that he's setting the U.S. up to lose, but basic economics has proven that tariffs are never a net win. The impact is always passed on to consumers, and sectors most affected require subsidies, which is a further drag on growth and a tax on the consumer in the form of increasing national debt obligations. I don't believe the tariffs will amount to a net benefit. It might decrease the deficit with China, but while China is feeling the effects of their own tariffs, guess who is taking up the slack? Vietnam, Mexico, and (I can't remember the third), but they have been the greatest beneficiaries of the tariffs, as their trade with the U.S. has increased.

As for the facts you only need to look at reliable sources. Forbes, BBC, and Business Insider can provide you with summaries, all of which use data collected by the U.S. departments listed. If you want the raw data, go straight to the source. U.S. Bureau Labour of Statistics, Census Bureau, Treasury Department, and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis are excellent sources. All the above data was drawn from those agencies. If you would like to dispute its credibility have at 'er.

I also like to view continuous trends. Anyone can say their administration decreased/increased x by y%, but when you see charts that show the data over a multi-year period you can observe trends. Take the following as an example.


The charts from this article are not what I based my previous assertion upon, they merely paint a picture. Trump, for the most part, has benefited from the policies and progress made by Obama. That much is an indisputable fact. I would not post any data that is not based on official U.S. gov't sources, and I don't care what any talking head on any program has to say.

Obama was far from perfect, I will admit that. But, who is?

Which Obama policies created the boost in their economy? And if this is true than why isnt Biden using this as a platform for his campaign to counter trumps economic policies? Would only make sense since he was there as VP. Seems strange not to throw these “hard facts” out there everyday if running for president. Unless of course there is nothing to back the claim.
 
Which Obama policies created the boost in their economy? And if this is true than why isnt Biden using this as a platform for his campaign to counter trumps economic policies? Would only make sense since he was there as VP. Seems strange not to throw these “hard facts” out there everyday if running for president. Unless of course there is nothing to back the claim.
I don't know, why don't you ask Biden's team? I don't have time to spell out every little facet. If you want the policy initiatives there are thousands of pages of that information at your access through the U.S. federal gov't portal.

In the election against Harper, the liberals made the claim that they would initiate a change from first past the post to proportional representation. It would have been a monumental undertaking that would have required more than the usual majority house to pass, most likely a super-majority. That is, the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population. It would be incredibly complicated and expensive. Oddly enough no astute conservatives thought to show how implausible this promise was, which could have been used to undermine other campaign promises.

Trying to explain such things to the majority of the voting public is likely futile. For all I know that data will come out in the campaign, then again, maybe not.

Nothing to back up the claim? It's official government data. Those numbers can be found in any economic or business news, or, as I said, the gov't archives. And, regardless of whether or not it is used does not diminish their legitimacy. Do you know what does diminish their legitimacy? When people willing ignore facts because they want to believe in a fairy tale. As I stated previously, if you don't believe me refute the data.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, why don't you ask Biden's team? I don't have time to spell out every little facet. If you want the policy initiatives there are thousands of pages of that information at your access through the U.S. federal gov't portal.

In the election against Harper, the liberals made the claim that they would initiate a change from first past the post to proportional representation. It would have been a monumental undertaking that would have required more than the usual majority house to pass, most likely a super-majority. That is, the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population. It would be incredibly complicated and expensive. Oddly enough no astute conservatives thought to show how implausible this promise was, which could have been used to undermine other campaign promises.

Trying to explain such things to the majority of the voting public is likely futile. For all I know that data will come out in the campaign, then again, maybe not.

Nothing to back up the claim? It's official government data. Those numbers can be found in any economic or business news, or, as I said, the gov't archives. And, regardless of whether or not it is used does not diminish their legitimacy. Do you know what does diminish their legitimacy? When people willing ignore facts because they want to believe in a fairy tale. As I stated previously, if you don't believe me refute the data.

I already know the policy of both administrations, and i happen to agree with more of the current than Obama. Except when it comes to Israel.
 
I don't know about that. From what I saw and have read they aren't that bad off. I'm not saying they have it good, but in many places it's not as bad as you may be lead to believe. Sure, there are smaller villages here and there, but that's not the norm. It's a large continent, and although there are some very poor areas, it's not a uniform state of existence by far. I wish I could recall where my friend traveled. Many had small farms. One thing I noticed about non-white and non-Asian students in university, they always studied in groups. Of course, there were groups of white students and Asians on occasion, but with other ethnicities, i.e. Middle Eastern and African, they were always studying together. It's admirable, supporting one another and persevering through community. Learning is easier when you have multiple minds tackling a subject or problem.
Do you just argue to argue?
Anyhow I’ll find the video and link it. The AREA I was talking about was dirt poor. My question was why do they have kids where there is no resources, not “all areas are not like that, in other areas....”
Jesus dude.
 
What hoo-rah crap? His speeches are not divisive. Not at all. Then you have the media telling people whitey must die, and somehow that makes trump the great divider.
Where exactly do you collect these “hard facts” on their economy? Serious question. And you think he is setting the usa to lose in his trade deals??
I don't know, why don't you ask Biden's team? I don't have time to spell out every little facet. If you want the policy initiatives there are thousands of pages of that information at your access through the U.S. federal gov't portal.

In the election against Harper, the liberals made the claim that they would initiate a change from first past the post to proportional representation. It would have been a monumental undertaking that would have required more than the usual majority house to pass, most likely a super-majority. That is, the House of Commons, the Senate and two thirds or more of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50 percent of the national population. It would be incredibly complicated and expensive. Oddly enough no astute conservatives thought to show how implausible this promise was, which could have been used to undermine other campaign promises.

Trying to explain such things to the majority of the voting public is likely futile. For all I know that data will come out in the campaign, then again, maybe not.

Nothing to back up the claim? It's official government data. Those numbers can be found in any economic or business news, or, as I said, the gov't archives. And, regardless of whether or not it is used does not diminish their legitimacy. Do you know what does diminish their legitimacy? When people willing ignore facts because they want to believe in a fairy tale. As I stated previously, if you don't believe me refute the data.
the data that Obammy started spewing,they switched to different methods of accounting.
McDonalds.
It was FAKE
Maybe that pleased some REALLY important people.
Just a little tidbit from the very beginning of his regime
A nice very kosher American family scored a mineral rights deal with the DRK with incredibly valuable minerals.
They were getting kosher mid days buffets flown in every day for 30K
Pretty good lunch money.
Really good deal all round.
 
Do you just argue to argue?
Anyhow I’ll find the video and link it. The AREA I was talking about was dirt poor. My question was why do they have kids where there is no resources, not “all areas are not like that, in other areas....”
Jesus dude.
Sheesh, take it easy. It wasn't arguing at all, I provided a thought, and then I rambled on for a bit, lol. I wasn't aware or gave it a second thought until I re-read the post. Yeah, I was on a tangent. To answer your question, cultural would be my guess.
 
Which Obama policies created the boost in their economy? And if this is true than why isnt Biden using this as a platform for his campaign to counter trumps economic policies? Would only make sense since he was there as VP. Seems strange not to throw these “hard facts” out there everyday if running for president. Unless of course there is nothing to back the claim.
Too simple.
 
Ghislaine Maxwell has a new lawyer,formerly of the SDNY,who is expected to counsell her to go all in,in exchange for sentencing considerations.
 
Do you just argue to argue?
Anyhow I’ll find the video and link it. The AREA I was talking about was dirt poor. My question was why do they have kids where there is no resources, not “all areas are not like that, in other areas....”
Jesus dude.

Sorbate..... it could be as simple as they like to fuck just as much as the next guy and when you’re low on water and food.... you’re also probably low on birth control. Will to propagate. Have lots of kids.... some to many will die, but that betters the chances of some living. In the simplest of thoughts. It happens in nature.

From an educated stance though.... this maybe doesn’t make sense....but let’s not forget that people in those places with little to no resources just barely squeaking out an existence have zero education.

Fuck.... when I was in Africa in 2014 many of the people there still believe that black cats are fucking witches. And I wasn’t staying in remote very remotes areas like those you are speaking of.

People only know what they know. If that’s the way it’s been.... that’s the way it will be. Unless someone does something to change things.... and we all know how much people enjoy change.... especially ones that aren’t educated.
 
Top