Do Republicans hate Obama because he's black?
Did you see the tea party "veterans" who spoke after Ted Cruz did his grandstanding in front of the barricaded memorials? Saying things like, "Obama needs to put the Koran down, and get up off his knees."? How appalling is it, that these imbeciles are *STILL* pushing the racist garbage and Muslim crapola? Trump was *still* beating the birther dead horse in 2012. Then they swear it's NOT about racism. If it's NOT about racism.......then WHY all the racist rhetoric?
If Donald Trump can bring back jobs and uptick in job creation, will liberals give him the credit that he deserves?
I’m not even a US American, but I have to take a jab at this question, for numerous reasons. First, I take it you’re a Republican and probably voted for Trump, the wording and intent of your question speaks volumes.During President Obama’s tenure:11,000,000 new jobs were created in the US (far more than any other President)73 straight months of positive figures for job creation (a new record)Unemployment was near 10% when Obama took office, it’s been under 5% for over a year and steadily reduced during his termMedian household incomes jumped by 5.2 percent in 2015, the fastest rate on record, according to the U.S. Census.Average hourly earnings are now rising at their fastest rate since Obama’s first year in office, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Median wage growth for full-time workers is at its highest level since the recession, according to the Atlanta Federal ReserveFor almost the first time in the US, the fastest wage growth among the US populace is NOT the rich, it’s actually the poorest households that show this fast wage growthSo, let me ask YOU a question, have you, or will you Republicans give Obama the credit he deserves, or will you follow Trumps BS as he touts how awful things were for the job markets under Obama?
The US is seeing a high job growth rate after President Trump took over. What is your view on the same, especially those who were much apprehensive initially?
If you Google “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” you will get:Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: "after this, therefore because of this") is a logical fallacy that states "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy.If you Google “belief in the law of small numbers definition” you will get:Judgmental bias which occurs when it is assumed that the characteristics of a sample population can be estimated from a small number of observations or data points. See also law of large numbers.The claim “President Trump is causing a high job growth rate” exhibits both of these logical fallacies: 1) post hoc fallacy and 2) the belief in the law of small numbers. We have a very small sample size here of job growth statistics, and even with a larger sample size, the post hoc fallacy is not eliminated. Thus I would recommend that readers do not make this claim.To be even more concrete, the post hoc fallacy is apparent in the claim “years in which the US government allocates more money for science, space, and technology are followed by an increase in suicides by hanging, strangulation, and suffocation. Therefore more science, space, and technology spending causes more of these types of suicides.” (source: 15 Insane Things That Correlate With Each Other)The fallacious belief in the law of small numbers is apparent in the claim “I flipped a coin four times, and it was heads every time, so this must be a weighted coin.”Interestingly, with much larger sample size, it has been shown by economists that stock returns under Democratic presidents have been historically larger than stock returns under Republican presidents (source: The Presidential Puzzle: Political Cycles and the Stock Market and Political Cycles and Stock Returns). It is important to note that economists generally refer to this as a puzzle, because it is unclear what is causing what. Even with a larger sample size, economists generally do not want to make a fallacious post hoc argument.
Clinton manipulated numbers to make the economy APPEAR better during his term, is that why Obama is hiring so.?
many Clinton people? He wants everything to APPEAR fine until it comes crashing down on another President? Greenspan did not let the market go into small corrections during the Clinton years to make the economy appear better than it was. Clinton's staff lied about numbers too. Is this why Obama wants so many of them in HIS administration?
Obama is going to be the first "president" since Carter to complete his first term in office with a NET LOSS?
of jobs in the work force compared to when he started. And even though President Bush inherited a mild recession from Clinton, America still went on to experience six years of uninterrupted economic growth and a record 52 straight months of job creation that produced more than 8 million new jobs. Oh, and during the Bush presidency, the unemployment rate averaged 5.3 percent. (Of course, the same lamestream media that worships Obama today were wringing their hands over how supposedly rotten the economy was back then.) Real after-tax income per capita increased by more than 11 percent. And from 2000 to 2007, real GDP grew by more than -- read it and weep, pal -- 17 PERCENT, which is a gain of nearly $2.1 trillion. Im obligated to ask your thoughts to make this a question
Do liberals care more about hating Trump than about how well the US is actually doing.?
It seems that liberals care more about hate and revenge for a 2016 election, than actually caring about how well the country is doing. If the country does well then shouldn't that be good for all people? Regardless if it's a democrat or republican. 3.4 percent economic growth, highest in 10 years. Nearly 4 million more jobs. Poverty rates the lowest in decades. Better relations in the world. Finally cracked down on the border problems. Highest Hispanic and Black employment rates in decades. Second amendment still safe. VOTE TRUMP 2020 if you care about America and the American dream.