Did Trump back down?

[LV426]

The imputation that presidents of either party "created" jobs is an extrapolation of the statistics you quoted

LOL! You asked for stats that showed when Democrats take over, things get better. I provided you with employment numbers showing that when Democratic Presidents are in office, more jobs are created.

You've been whining about that ever since because you don't want to admit what Trump has already said; Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

 

[LV426]

The unsupported assertion

It's not unsupported! The facts clearly show that when Democrats control the White House, more jobs are created. You can't dispute that because that's what the stats show.

You didn't ask for anything else...you asked for proof that when Democrats take over, things get better. And that was proven by employment statistics.

Now you're just flailing, hoping that one ounce of shit you throw up against the wall of your cage will stick. But all you did was just cover your throwing hand in shit.

 

[Legion]

Not really, no.

No?

These DEMOCRATS voted for GOP initiatives.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/15/politics/how-often-have-democrats-in-trump-country-voted-with-republicans/index.html

Plenty of registered DEMOCRATS said they voted for Trump, who ran as a Republican.

http://time.com/voices-from-democratic-counties-where-trump-won-big/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/these-lifelong-democrats-voted-for-trump-and-arent-sorry

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html

I expect you'll backpedal now, and try to claim that "No, not really" didn't really mean "no", won't you?

 

[Legion]

It's not unsupported! The facts clearly show that when Democrats control the White House, more jobs are created. You can't dispute that because that's what the stats show. You didn't ask for anything else...you asked for proof that when Democrats take over, things get better. And that was proven by employment statistics. Now you're just flailing, hoping that one ounce of shit you throw up against the wall of your cage will stick. But all you did was just cover your throwing hand in shit.

I asked for statistical evidence to supportr this statement that you made:

typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

Posting statistics that subdivide employment rates according to the political affiliation of a POTUS isn't statistical proof that the the political affiliation of a POTUS caused the rates to rise or fall.

There is no causative correlation established by BLS statistics.

Your claim is absurd.

 

[Legion]

You asked for stats that showed when Democrats take over, things get better.

typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

Here's what I asked:

Is that right? Can you give some statistically-based examples?

 

[LV426]

I asked for statistical evidence to supportr this statement that you made:

And I provided you that info in employment numbers. You've been complaining about that ever since. Stop being such a baby, you Nazi.

Posting statistics that subdivide employment rates according to the political affiliation of a POTUS isn't statistical proof that the the political affiliation of a POTUS caused the rates to rise or fall.

Says who?

Trump certainly seems to think so. He even said himself Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

There is no causative correlation established by BLS statistics.

You should probably tell Trump that since he seems to think Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

 

[LV426]

Here's what I asked:

And I gave you that in BLS statistics about employment.

You've been complaining about it ever since.

 

[Legion]

And I gave you that in BLS statistics about employment.

I asked for statistical evidence that proves your claim. The BLS statistics do not.

Yeah...typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

Is that right? Can you give some statistically-based examples?

Want to try some more?

 

[Legion]

You should probably tell Trump that since he seems to think Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

Trump didn't post this:

Yeah...typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

You did.

 

[LV426]

I asked for statistical evidence that proves your claim. The BLS statistics do not.

Sure they do.

They show that when Democrats are in the Oval Office, more jobs are created.

 

[LV426]

Trump didn't post this:



You did.

And Trump said this:

In fact, since 1947, Democratic Presidents have had GDP growth rates of 3.8% vs. Republicans at 2.4%. That's according to Politifact.

 

[Legion]

And Trump said this

I asked for statistical evidence for this statement that you made.

Yeah...typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

Where is it?

 

[LV426]

I asked for statistical evidence for this statement that you made.

Which I gave you in employment figures from 1981-present, and then gave you again with average GDP growth by party since 1947 according to politifact. I know you saw it, because you quoted the post where I put it in after the Trump video where he says Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

So let's recap:

Since 1981, Democratic Presidents have created far more jobs than Conservatives, in a fewer number of years.
Since 1947, Democratic Presidents have seen GDP growth average 3.8% vs. 2.4% for Republicans.

Your laziness is no excuse for being so sloppy as you post. You do a very rushed, half-assed, yet wholly arrogant job.

 

[Legion]

Sure they do. They show that when Democrats are in the Oval Office, more jobs are created.

You really don't seem to understand causal relationships in statistics, do you?

Causality requires that all alternative explanations for any non-statistical observed relationships between two statistical variables must be definitively and conclusively ruled out.

A spurious or false relationship exists when what appears to be an association between two variables that could actually caused by a third extraneous variable.

Since the BLS statistics you cited do not establish any casual relationship between political affiliation and employment, your claim is spurious.

 

[Legion]

So let's recap: Since 1981, Democratic Presidents have created far more jobs than Conservatives, in a fewer number of years. Since 1947, Democratic Presidents have seen GDP growth average 3.8% vs. 2.4% for Republicans..

None of which proves your spurious claim.

Yeah...typically when Conservatives stop running things, they become more effective.

There is no stated statistically-proven causality between the political affiliation of a president and employment rates in the BLS data.

 

[LV426]

You really don't seem to understand causal relationships in statistics, do you?

And now comes the part where the Nazi tries to Nazisplain to me that only statistics he produces that pass his Nazi smell test will be statistics he accepts.

Not only have Democratic Presidents created more jobs than Republicans, but since 1947, Democratic Presidents produced GDP growth 50% higher than that of Conservative Presidents. And it's not even close:

3.8% GDP growth for Democratic Presidents since 1947
2.4% GDP growth for Republican Presidents since 1947.

So now, not only do Democrats create more jobs, but the grow the economy more too.

Must be why Trump said Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.

I bet you that the stock market growth under Democratic President is better than Republican Presidents too. And lookiee here, it's true as well.

 

[Legion]

And now comes the part where the Nazi tries to Nazisplain to me that only statistics he produces that pass his Nazi smell test will be statistics he accepts.

The rules of evidence for statistical analysis are non-partisan and impartial, and that's unfortunate for you.

 

[LV426]

You really don't seem to understand causal relationships in statistics, do you?

So let's recap again:

Democratic Presidents have created more jobs than Republican Presidents, in a shorter amount of time since 1981.
Democratic Presidents have had 50% higher GDP growth on average than Republican Presidents since 1947.
Democratic Presidents saw 4-year average total stock market returns since 1928 of 57.44% vs. Conservatives at a paltry 16.61%
Democratic Presidents saw 4 year annualized stock market returns since 1928 of 10.83% vs. Conservatives at a paltry 1.71%

So by four objective measurements, Democratic Presidents are better for the economy than Republican ones.

 

[LV426]

None of which proves your spurious claim.

Oh, it definitely does. It proves that once Democrats are in the White House, the economy grows 50% faster on average. So as soon as Conservatives stop running things (the economy), it becomes 50% more effective.

There is no stated statistically-proven causality between the political affiliation of a president and employment rates in the BLS data.

Which is why I also provided you with GDP average growth as well as total 4 year returns on the market, and annualized 4 year returns on the market.

There is no objective measurement that disproves anything I'm saying about how terrible you Nazis are for the economy and country.

 

[Legion]

So let's recap again: Democratic Presidents have created more jobs than Republican Presidents, in a shorter amount of time since 1981. Democratic Presidents have had 50% higher GDP growth on average than Republican Presidents since 1947. Democratic Presidents saw 4-year average total stock market returns since 1928 of 57.44% vs. Conservatives at a paltry 16.61% Democratic Presidents saw 4 year annualized stock market returns since 1928 of 10.83% vs. Conservatives at a paltry 1.71% So by four objective measurements, Democratic Presidents are better for the economy than Republican ones.

You can "recap" all you like. Unless you can prove a valid causal relationship between the political affiliation of a POTUS and economic statistics, you're done.

Your interpretation of the data is not itself data.