United We Stand - uwsboard.com

TheH2 wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

TheH2 wrote:

awesome guy wrote:That's a canard. Obama never produced 3% annual GDP growth. That's not fine and what y'all waved off as the new normal. Trump is getting us the old normal.

You're right, Obama didn't, but the US economy did. Great signalling.

"Annual" wasn't included to add space. Learn to read.

The second graph provided annual numbers. Both 2014 and 2015 posted higher GDP growth than 2017. Directly from the source: click section 1, table 1.1.1, modify to annual.
https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?r ... 6=a&1911=0

Like I said, signalling.

Like I said and you erroneously contracted, not over 3%.

Ok, sorry, this economy is great with lower job creation and GDP growth consistent with the Obama years which was terrible.

It is better than 2016. And 2017 doesn't really have a lot of Trump in it as his policies aren't taking effect till now. He bumped 2017 with hope and change, even irrational exuberance over what's to come. The jobless data is showing that. Just look at what the stock market did, fueled by expectations and the lifting of the government yoke around business. It's a great time to be in business thanks to Trump.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote: It's way too early to call him better than Reagan,

Is he a rich, classless, poor leader....or possibly better than Reagan? Or, both (afraid to ask what you think of the gipper)?

Confusing either way.

He's just a little over 1 year in to his 1st term. Making a judgment on someone's first year with another's 8 years, is not possible. Reagan had a tough beginning, he pushed a big tax cut, which didn't work, but adjusted it later to make it a success. After 18 months, the economy was going in the wrong direction, but he righted the ship.
He pushed Congress hard, but got the public behind him, and still worked with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
He took a firm stance on Russia, and never subsided. IMO, he spent too much on the military, but the results worked out.

Too early to tell if Trump will learn, and adjust, like Reagan did.

TheH2 wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote: It's way too early to call him better than Reagan, that's just ridiculous. Trump stepped into an economy, and a stock market, that was headed in the right direction. He's kept it on track. The crap Reagan had to deal with is exponentially more difficult than what Trump was handed.

And I think that answered my question.

Yes. There was the distinct possibility that the economy would take a turn for the worse.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
1-3. Correcting your misguided assumptions and illogical leaps, multiple times, is SOP on UWS.

Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote: It's way too early to call him better than Reagan,

Is he a rich, classless, poor leader....or possibly better than Reagan? Or, both (afraid to ask what you think of the gipper)?

Confusing either way.

He's just a little over 1 year in to his 1st term. Making a judgment on someone's first year with another's 8 years, is not possible. Reagan had a tough beginning, he pushed a big tax cut, which didn't work, but adjusted it later to make it a success. After 18 months, the economy was going in the wrong direction, but he righted the ship.
He pushed Congress hard, but got the public behind him, and still worked with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
He took a firm stance on Russia, and never subsided. IMO, he spent too much on the military, but the results worked out.

Too early to tell if Trump will learn, and adjust, like Reagan did.

Trump is the epitome of agile management. That's what you guys call chaos, but it's him turning the gears to get results.

Now that we know why Tillerson was fired, why is the left freaking out over this? Tillerson was actively working to undermine Trump's Iran policy. If you're the President, you cannot have a member of your cabinet undermining any of your policies. Trump was right to fire him. And now he can get more MAGA guys in his administration.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote: It's way too early to call him better than Reagan,

Is he a rich, classless, poor leader....or possibly better than Reagan? Or, both (afraid to ask what you think of the gipper)?

Confusing either way.

He's just a little over 1 year in to his 1st term. Making a judgment on someone's first year with another's 8 years, is not possible. Reagan had a tough beginning, he pushed a big tax cut, which didn't work, but adjusted it later to make it a success. After 18 months, the economy was going in the wrong direction, but he righted the ship.
He pushed Congress hard, but got the public behind him, and still worked with both sides of the aisle to get things done.
He took a firm stance on Russia, and never subsided. IMO, he spent too much on the military, but the results worked out.

Too early to tell if Trump will learn, and adjust, like Reagan did.

It is too early, but he's already made much more progress than Reagan did. A lot of that is thanks to Obama being unilateral and incompetent. So Trump busted out his pen and phone to undo most of what Obama stood up. The fool built his house of straw so the big bad wolf blew it down. Cater was a boob, but he at least mostly followed the rule of law and executed his polices via legislation, taking legislation to unravel which is a lengthy process.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
1-3. Correcting your misguided assumptions and illogical leaps, multiple times, is SOP on UWS.

Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
1-3. Correcting your misguided assumptions and illogical leaps, multiple times, is SOP on UWS.

Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

I'm not sure what that means, but my defense is that I'm not going to argue for your misinterpretation of what I said, because I don't agree with your misinterpretation.

Now, maybe that doesn't cover #2, but I was never going to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so voting for McMullin isn't endorsing Hillary, anymore than it was endorsing Trump. If I had written in Sanders, would you characterize that as endorsing Trump?

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
1-3. Correcting your misguided assumptions and illogical leaps, multiple times, is SOP on UWS.

Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

I'm not sure what that means, but my defense is that I'm not going to argue for your misinterpretation of what I said, because I don't agree with your misinterpretation.

Now, maybe that doesn't cover #2, but I was never going to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so voting for McMullin isn't endorsing Hillary, anymore than it was endorsing Trump. If I had written in Sanders, would you characterize that as endorsing Trump?

1. Why else would you add "rich" to the string of insults? It makes no sense in any other context I'm aware of, or you've been able to articulate.

2. Why would you marginalize your vote? Do you think anyone is going to care that .0007% of the population in LA voted for McMuffin in 2016? You should have worked harder in the primaries instead of taking all your toys and going home.

3. Engineer, not deck salesman. Try again, you are the one twisting words.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:
1-3. Correcting your misguided assumptions and illogical leaps, multiple times, is SOP on UWS.

Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

I'm not sure what that means, but my defense is that I'm not going to argue for your misinterpretation of what I said, because I don't agree with your misinterpretation.

Now, maybe that doesn't cover #2, but I was never going to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so voting for McMullin isn't endorsing Hillary, anymore than it was endorsing Trump. If I had written in Sanders, would you characterize that as endorsing Trump?

1. Why else would you add "rich" to the string of insults? It makes no sense in any other context I'm aware of, or you've been able to articulate.

2. Why would you marginalize your vote? Do you think anyone is going to care that .0007% of the population in LA voted for McMuffin in 2016? You should have worked harder in the primaries instead of taking all your toys and going home.

3. Engineer, not deck salesman. Try again, you are the one twisting words.

1. Those are all descriptors of Trump, they are who he is. His wealth is a big part of him being elected. Not sure how that's hard for you to understand.

2. That's your opinion. I think voting for someone you have serious issues with, is worse than voting for a decent human being. You're talking like someone who's life is controlled by the govt. Mine isn't. My success is dependent on me, not the govt.

3. OK, got what you're saying now. As for values, of anyone you work with, depends on the job. Do I care about their opinion on gay marriage, or guns? No. Do I care if their values include being trustworthy and honest? Yes.
For a POTUS, the values, social and economic, are more important.

So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it's not true silly trailer trash.

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why I am no longer a Dallas Cowboy fan, though I was as a child from age six to twelve or so: Tom Landry found out he was fired by Jones by the Dallas newspapers. ---> = no class! I was done! Same thing, sort of

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it's not true silly trailer trash.[/quot

He didn't know about the Nork deal.
Look... I like a LOT of what Trump is getting done.
That doesn't mean Trump can't be a dick

RiverguyVT wrote:
He didn't know about the Nork deal.
Look... I like a LOT of what Trump is getting done.
That doesn't mean Trump can't be a dick

He certainly can be a dick. But this is more fake news. Tillerson called off his Africa trip after the first day to return to DC last week. He knew.

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it's not true silly trailer trash.

That wouldn't be shocking... would it?

RiverguyVT wrote:

awesome guy wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course it's not true silly trailer trash.

That wouldn't be shocking... would it?

No, and that doesn't make it true either.

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:
Not an argument.

Of course it isn't. I'm not going to argue for something I didn't say.

Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

I'm not sure what that means, but my defense is that I'm not going to argue for your misinterpretation of what I said, because I don't agree with your misinterpretation.

Now, maybe that doesn't cover #2, but I was never going to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so voting for McMullin isn't endorsing Hillary, anymore than it was endorsing Trump. If I had written in Sanders, would you characterize that as endorsing Trump?

1. Why else would you add "rich" to the string of insults? It makes no sense in any other context I'm aware of, or you've been able to articulate.

2. Why would you marginalize your vote? Do you think anyone is going to care that .0007% of the population in LA voted for McMuffin in 2016? You should have worked harder in the primaries instead of taking all your toys and going home.

3. Engineer, not deck salesman. Try again, you are the one twisting words.

1. Those are all descriptors of Trump, they are who he is. His wealth is a big part of him being elected. Not sure how that's hard for you to understand.

2. That's your opinion. I think voting for someone you have serious issues with, is worse than voting for a decent human being. You're talking like someone who's life is controlled by the govt. Mine isn't. My success is dependent on me, not the govt.

3. OK, got what you're saying now. As for values, of anyone you work with, depends on the job. Do I care about their opinion on gay marriage, or guns? No. Do I care if their values include being trustworthy and honest? Yes.
For a POTUS, the values, social and economic, are more important.

1a. Yeah, we know it's your opinion. The point is that your opinion is silly. Wealthy campaigns are required to run for national office (hence...all of McMuffin's electoral votes). The founders actually saw a man of wealth as being a better candidate for office than a man who could use his office to make himself wealthy.
1b. Being a bad leader is "part of him being elected?"

2. No, I'm saying that for such a principled person like yourself, you apparently did nothing in the primaries to produce a candidate worthy of your vote. Instead, you blew your vote and complain for the next 8 years.

3. That's closer to something we can agree on but you can't conflate personal action with personal belief. Ex: a failed husband can still understand and promote good policy as it pertains to marriage.

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

HokieFanDC wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote: Chewbacca defense. Smart move.

I'm not sure what that means, but my defense is that I'm not going to argue for your misinterpretation of what I said, because I don't agree with your misinterpretation.

Now, maybe that doesn't cover #2, but I was never going to vote for either Trump or Hillary, so voting for McMullin isn't endorsing Hillary, anymore than it was endorsing Trump. If I had written in Sanders, would you characterize that as endorsing Trump?

1. Why else would you add "rich" to the string of insults? It makes no sense in any other context I'm aware of, or you've been able to articulate.

2. Why would you marginalize your vote? Do you think anyone is going to care that .0007% of the population in LA voted for McMuffin in 2016? You should have worked harder in the primaries instead of taking all your toys and going home.

3. Engineer, not deck salesman. Try again, you are the one twisting words.

1. Those are all descriptors of Trump, they are who he is. His wealth is a big part of him being elected. Not sure how that's hard for you to understand.

2. That's your opinion. I think voting for someone you have serious issues with, is worse than voting for a decent human being. You're talking like someone who's life is controlled by the govt. Mine isn't. My success is dependent on me, not the govt.

3. OK, got what you're saying now. As for values, of anyone you work with, depends on the job. Do I care about their opinion on gay marriage, or guns? No. Do I care if their values include being trustworthy and honest? Yes.
For a POTUS, the values, social and economic, are more important.

1a. Yeah, we know it's your opinion. The point is that your opinion is silly. Wealthy campaigns are required to run for national office (hence...all of McMuffin's electoral votes). The founders actually saw a man of wealth as being a better candidate for office than a man who could use his office to make himself wealthy.
1b. Being a bad leader is "part of him being elected?"

2. No, I'm saying that for such a principled person like yourself, you apparently did nothing in the primaries to produce a candidate worthy of your vote. Instead, you blew your vote and complain for the next 8 years.

3. That's closer to something we can agree on but you can't conflate personal action with personal belief. Ex: a failed husband can still understand and promote good policy as it pertains to marriage.

What is #2 supposed to mean? I voted for Kasich in the primary. And yes, none of the major party primaries was worthy of a vote. So, I didn't vote for them. I didn't blow my vote. By not voting for either, I am telling both parties that they aren't worthy of my vote. That's what voting is for, expressing your opinion. Your stance on voting is what created this moronic system.

HokieFanDC wrote: What is #2 supposed to mean? I voted for Kasich in the primary. And yes, none of the major party primaries was worthy of a vote. So, I didn't vote for them. I didn't blow my vote. By not voting for either, I am telling both parties that they aren't worthy of my vote. That's what voting is for, expressing your opinion. Your stance on voting is what created this moronic system.

Ahh yes, precisely my point - participation in the election process is more than punching a ballot for a RINO. Thankfully, everyone saw what a terrible candidate Kasich was.

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lie travels the world 3 times before the truth gets its shoes on...

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lie travels the world 3 times before the truth gets its shoes on...

I looked into this, and it appears that he was informed via Kelly that he was going to “get a tweet.”

Classy.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lie travels the world 3 times before the truth gets its shoes on...

I actually more or less believe this. However it raises the question...how did he ever got the job in the first place?

HooFighter wrote:

USN_Hokie wrote:

ip_law-hokie wrote:So I’m hearing that Tillerson found out that he was being fired on Twitter?

Classy if true.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lie travels the world 3 times before the truth gets its shoes on...

I actually more or less believe this. However it raises the question...how did he ever got the job in the first place?

Each of your posts make it clearer why you're defensive over Trump mocking the mentally disabled. Bless your heart.