Biden Clinches The Nomination

[Conservative]

They're not and I've directed you where you can find out where that point has been made over and over again. I've already gone over the erroneous conclusions you've drawn from the COVID 19 stats in other threads and other posters have questioned your data analysis of economic figures in the sub forum I referenced earlier. It's interesting that you call others biased and don't acknowledge your own biases which have been made clear all over this forum. Not once in my time here have I called anyone a "left/right wing radical" or any other name during the course of a debate. I'm not sure if you think you're insulting anyone with your "totally out of touch with reality" one liners, but it's also clear that you cannot handle differing views, so the only thing you can do is try to change someone's mind through endless repetition.

Again, you have a problem with the data I have posted regarding CV19 take it up with the source

Coronavirus (COVID-19) live map tracker from Microsoft Bing

As for the rest of your post and so called claims of cherrypicking, you have no idea what you are talking about and have provided no evidence to support your claims. My data comes from the official gov't sources, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.gov. All are official data and all contain context, apparently a word you don't understand

You are indeed a left wing radical incapable of defending your position, making invalid claims that you cannot support, and refusing to admit when wrong. It is you that misinterprets data because of loyalty to an ideology, context matters, learn what that means and apply it to the data you want to claim is cherry picked

 

[ElChupacabra]

Again, you have a problem with the data I have posted regarding CV19 take it up with the source

Coronavirus (COVID-19) live map tracker from Microsoft Bing

I have no problem with the data. What I questioned were the conclusions you drew from them like them being representative of the differences in health care systems between countries with private and public healthcare systems.

As for the rest of your post and so called claims of cherrypicking, you have no idea what you are talking about and have provided no evidence to support your claims. My data comes from the official gov't sources, bea.gov, bls.gov, and treasury.gov. All are official data and all contain context, apparently a word you don't understand

I told you where you can find plenty of examples, that you choose not to is on you. It doesn't make sense to cut and past from other threads when it's easier to go to the sources.

You are indeed a left wing radical incapable of defending your position, making invalid claims that you cannot support, and refusing to admit when wrong. It is you that misinterprets data because of loyalty to an ideology, context matters, learn what that means and apply it to the data you want to claim is cherry picked

See above.

 

[Conservative]

=ElChupacabra;1072069417]I have no problem with the data. What I questioned were the conclusions you drew from them like them being representative of the differences in health care systems between countries with private and public healthcare systems.

Questioning the conclusions?? You explain to me then why Europe has a higher percentage of Deaths per infection than the U.S.?

I told you where you can find plenty of examples, that you choose not to is on you. It doesn't make sense to cut and past from other threads when it's easier to go to the sources.

No, you did not and the fact this is the third time you have told me this shows just how poorly informed you are, you could have proven your point the first time with actual sources but cannot do so

 

[Conservative]

I have no problem with the data. What I questioned were the conclusions you drew from them like them being representative of the differences in health care systems between countries with private and public healthcare systems.



I told you where you can find plenty of examples, that you choose not to is on you. It doesn't make sense to cut and past from other threads when it's easier to go to the sources.




See above.

Is this the cherry picked data that you claim I posted? Why don't you interpret it for me "PROPERLY" This data is why I will be voting for Trump in November, Biden IMO will never generate these kind of results as his resume shows

GDP dollars and GDP dollar growth, 487 billion growth is what Trump inherited, what was it in 2017-2018-2019?
2014 17527.3 +742.0
2015 18224.8 +697.5
2016 18715.0+487.2
2017 19519.4 +804.4
2018 20,580.2 +1060.8
2019 21427.1 +846.9

Then there is this which Trump inherited and the comparison through February 2020. Anyone that claims the GDP growth now is similar to what Obama had is the true hack and totally has no credibility. GDP components are personal consumption, business investment, government spending, and net exports. Obama's GDP growth was 4.3 trillion 8 years(500 Billion per year), Trump 2.7 trillion three years(900 Billion per year), Obama's due to gov't spending, Trump consumer spending

Apps Test | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Section One Domestic Product and Income
Table 1.1.5 Gross Domestic Product

Unemployment Rate 4.7% January 2017 vs. 3.6% February 2020-U-3

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Employed 152.2 million January 2017 to 157.9 million today so 6 million job growth from 2008 to 2017(146 million to 152 million) is celebrated but 6.7 million growth in the last three years isn't!! ]Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

U-6 in January 2017 9.3% vs 6.9% February 2020? Wow!! 2.4% better U-6 obviously meaningless to you. U-6 indicates economic activity and includes all the under employed

Top Picks (Most Requested Statistics) : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


Part time for economic reasons, 5.7 million January 2017 vs. 4.2 million February 2020? Looks to me that incredible job growth you claim was boosted by part time jobs. Part time for economic reason jobs when the recession started 4.8 million, 5.7 million when Obama left office

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost


African American unemployment 8.0% January 2017 vs. 6.0% February 2020?

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

 

[ElChupacabra]

Questioning the conclusions?? You explain to me then why Europe has a higher percentage of Deaths per infection than the U.S.?

The data you presented was of infection and death rates, yet you're drawing conclusions from those two data sets that do not support the conclusions you're making. There are numerous variables which can affect the infection and death rates, but the source doesn't go into that level of analysis so what you're stating is conjecture. It could be a combination of factors from age demographics, to comorbidity rates, population density, government response etc. All of this I have explained numerous times before, and that's often when you make some snide remark. You keep concluding that the information you provided supports your narrative that the US response is why it is doing better than other nations without accounting for any of what I just described. It's dishonest to make a comparison and then cite data which doesn't support your conclusion.

Here's a perfect example:

Didn't see an answer to this question, which of the following countries has Universal Healthcare and which one has the best results?

Cases Deaths

United States 1259709 74581 5.9%

Spain 221447 26070 11.8%

Italy 214457 29684 13.8%

England 201111 30076 15.0%

France 137150 25809 18.8%

Netherlands 31319 5204 16.6%

No, you did not and the fact this is the third time you have told me this shows just how poorly informed you are, you could have proven your point the first time with actual sources but cannot do so

You can start here, where you were called out on an incorrect calculation and then continued to double down.

 

[Conservative]

The data you presented was of infection and death rates, yet you're drawing conclusions from those two data sets that do not support the conclusions you're making. There are numerous variables which can affect the infection and death rates, but the source doesn't go into that level of analysis so what you're stating is conjecture. It could be a combination of factors from age demographics, to comorbidity rates, population density, government response etc. All of this I have explained numerous times before, and that's often when you make some snide remark. You keep concluding that the information you provided supports your narrative that the US response is why it is doing better than other nations without accounting for any of what I just described. It's dishonest to make a comparison and then cite data which doesn't support your conclusion.

Here's a perfect example:









You can start here, where you were called out on an incorrect calculation and then continued to double down.

Wrong, Trump's economy generated over 900 billion per year in GDP growth, you are looking at percentages and dollars matter not percentages. Already corrected that link you copied but that data was based upon quarterly, changed it to the proper one 21.4 trillion.

2017 19519.4 +804.4
2018 20,580.2 +1060.8
2019 21427.1 +846.9

Obama left him with 487.2 billion GDP growth in 2016

 

[Conservative]

The data you presented was of infection and death rates, yet you're drawing conclusions from those two data sets that do not support the conclusions you're making. There are numerous variables which can affect the infection and death rates, but the source doesn't go into that level of analysis so what you're stating is conjecture. It could be a combination of factors from age demographics, to comorbidity rates, population density, government response etc. All of this I have explained numerous times before, and that's often when you make some snide remark. You keep concluding that the information you provided supports your narrative that the US response is why it is doing better than other nations without accounting for any of what I just described. It's dishonest to make a comparison and then cite data which doesn't support your conclusion.

Here's a perfect example:









You can start here, where you were called out on an incorrect calculation and then continued to double down.

Here is where I got the numbers 21.7, quarterly data

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars] Seasonally adjusted at annual rates
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: May 28, 2020 - Next Release Date June 25, 2020

Line 2018 2019 2020
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
1 Gross domestic product 20163.2 20510.2 20749.8 20897.8 21098.8 21340.3 21542.5 21729.1

Here is the annual

Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product
[Billions of dollars]
Bureau of Economic Analysis
Last Revised on: May 28, 2020 - Next Release Date June 25, 2020

Line 2017 2018 2019
Line
1 Gross domestic product 19519.4 20580.2 21427.7

Which one you want me to use?? Want me to show the average much higher than 900 billion a year?

 

[Conservative]

The data you presented was of infection and death rates, yet you're drawing conclusions from those two data sets that do not support the conclusions you're making. There are numerous variables which can affect the infection and death rates, but the source doesn't go into that level of analysis so what you're stating is conjecture. It could be a combination of factors from age demographics, to comorbidity rates, population density, government response etc. All of this I have explained numerous times before, and that's often when you make some snide remark. You keep concluding that the information you provided supports your narrative that the US response is why it is doing better than other nations without accounting for any of what I just described. It's dishonest to make a comparison and then cite data which doesn't support your conclusion.

Here's a perfect example:









You can start here, where you were called out on an incorrect calculation and then continued to double down.

Post 307!!!! you still cannot admit when wrong, a true character flaw!

 

[ElChupacabra]

Post 307!!!! you still cannot admit when wrong, a true character flaw!

What was wrong about what I linked to? I cited just one example where you presented bad data, critiqued others when they pointed it out, then went on the usual deflection by trying to change the topic.

You still haven't addressed the bad conclusions you drew from the COVID 19 data you posted.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Wrong, Trump's economy generated over 900 billion per year in GDP growth, you are looking at percentages and dollars matter not percentages. Already corrected that link you copied but that data was based upon quarterly, changed it to the proper one 21.4 trillion.

2017 19519.4 +804.4
2018 20,580.2 +1060.8
2019 21427.1 +846.9

Obama left him with 487.2 billion GDP growth in 2016

Wait, so now percentages don't matter? What do you think those percentages represent? Also, you only focus on the recovery from the "doom and gloom" perspective you critique others for when they talk about Trump. To deny the economy turned around pretty well after 2008 is dishonest; I'm sure you'll come back with the usual "it was the worst recovery ever", but then again it's not like you to give that administration credit for anything. You also have this myopic view that things only started improving after 2016 and ignore the upward trend that was already happening.

Did the economy continue to grow under Trump? Sure, but he came in to an economy that was already trending upward. I think what he does now that the economy has been negatively impacted due to the COVID 19 crisis will be more telling of what he can do in a negative economic situation. If you look at it from a trend perspective across a variety of metrics, there have been highs and lows throughout both Obama and Trump presidencies.

 

[Conservative]

What was wrong about what I linked to? I cited just one example where you presented bad data, critiqued others when they pointed it out, then went on the usual deflection by trying to change the topic.

You still haven't addressed the bad conclusions you drew from the COVID 19 data you posted.

Bad data? Where did that data come from and why specifically is that bad data, because you don't agree with it? Here is the reality that you want to ignore

Obama=8 years 4.3 trillion GDP growth=530 billion per year

Trump=3 years 2.7 trillion dollars using the 21.4 trillion=900 billion per year. Using the 21.7 trillion would have made the number 3 trillion in three years or 1 trillion per year. Which one do you want me to use?

You are stunningly very poorly informed and educated on data and that doesn't do a thing for your credibility. I gave you the site where I got the 21.7 and 21.4 you never offer data and called the 21.7 number false, it isn't false, it is captured by bea.gov and is quarterly data seasonalized, I corrected that to the 21.4 number but you failed to recognize that

What bad conclusions regarding CV 19? You have a number if confirmed infections and a number of deaths, how do you interpret the data? Just because you don't agree with the conclusions doesn't make the data wrong. You simply cannot admit when wrong, that is cult like attitude

 

[ElChupacabra]

Bad data? Where did that data come from and why specifically is that bad data, because you don't agree with it? Here is the reality that you want to ignore

Obama=8 years 4.3 trillion GDP growth=530 billion per year

Trump=3 years 2.7 trillion dollars using the 21.4 trillion=900 billion per year. Using the 21.7 trillion would have made the number 3 trillion in three years or 1 trillion per year. Which one do you want me to use?

And do you think the comparison makes sense given the differences between both economies when each respective president started their term? What will be more telling, and make for an apt comparison, is how the current president is able to handle the impacted economy.

You are stunningly very poorly informed and educated on data and that doesn't do a thing for your credibility.

Says the person who pulls conclusions from data sets which do not support his assertion?

:lamo

What bad conclusions regarding CV 19? You have a number if confirmed infections and a number of deaths, how do you interpret the data? Just because you don't agree with the conclusions doesn't make the data wrong. You simply cannot admit when wrong, that is cult like attitude

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that the data isn't wrong, it's your conclusions you draw from it. In the data you're posting, none of it is supporting a conclusion as to why the numbers are what they are. You're free to assume it's because unicorns stopping the virus or it not liking US air but that doesn't mean it's correct. The simple interpretation is those statistics represent the number of identified cases and deaths, not why the rates are what they are; that requires additional data and analysis. I'm not sure why you can't understand that key distinction.

 

[Conservative]

ElChupacabra;1072073711]And do you think the comparison makes sense given the differences between both economies when each respective president started their term? What will be more telling, and make for an apt comparison, is how the current president is able to handle the impacted economy.

I lived and worked during a much worse recession than 07-09 in 81-82 and the leadership was starkly different, Reagan promoted the private sector, Obama the public sector leading to significantly different results. It is an apt comparison because it is easier growing coming off a bad recession than taking control during a growing economy. The electorate showed you their reaction to the economic policies of Obama, why is that so hard for you to understand

Says the person who pulls conclusions from data sets which do not support his assertion?

Still waiting for proof of that statement, you are ignoring my retraction of the 21.7 trillion dollar GDP returning it 21.4 trillion which still showed Trump 900 billion average GDP growth per year

I'm not sure why I have to keep repeating that the data isn't wrong, it's your conclusions you draw from it. In the data you're posting, none of it is supporting a conclusion as to why the numbers are what they are. You're free to assume it's because unicorns stopping the virus or it not liking US air but that doesn't mean it's correct. The simple interpretation is those statistics represent the number of identified cases and deaths, not why the rates are what they are; that requires additional data and analysis. I'm not sure why you can't understand that key distinction.

I am waiting for you to explain how my conclusions are wrong or why they even matter? How does my opinion trump the actual data posted?? Noticed that you ignored the data, here it is up to date

6/13/2020 Cases Deaths Percentage

United States 2115994 117126 5.5%
Texas 86011 1957 2.3%
New York 382630 30790 8.0%
New Jersey 166605 12589 7.6%

 

[ElChupacabra]

I lived and worked during a much worse recession than 07-09 in 81-82 and the leadership was starkly different, Reagan promoted the private sector, Obama the public sector leading to significantly different results. It is an apt comparison because it is easier growing coming off a bad recession than taking control during a growing economy. The electorate showed you their reaction to the economic policies of Obama, why is that so hard for you to understand

Well I suppose we'll see how well Trump fares during this downturn. Then, of course, there's the nuance of what kind of recession we're talking about because not all recessions are equal.

Still waiting for proof of that statement, you are ignoring my retraction of the 21.7 trillion dollar GDP returning it 21.4 trillion which still showed Trump 900 billion average GDP growth per year

Correction noted. Apologies for not having noted it earlier.

I am waiting for you to explain how my conclusions are wrong or why they even matter? How does my opinion trump the actual data posted?? Noticed that you ignored the data, here it is up to date

6/13/2020 Cases Deaths Percentage

United States 2115994 117126 5.5%
Texas 86011 1957 2.3%
New York 382630 30790 8.0%
New Jersey 166605 12589 7.6%

It's a debate site; if you draw a conclusion from data and it's not reflected in it then expect to be called out on it. Your opinion doesn't trump the data, I'm addressing a baseless conclusion since you're not addressing any of the variables not represented in those numbers. Yes, there are more infected people in NY and NJ, there's no debate about that. However, once you start drawing conclusions that aren't found in the data you just provided (like comparisons on health care systems tied to those percentages), then as you often say, "that doesn't do a thing for your credibility".

 

[Conservative]

ElChupacabra;1072073911]Well I suppose we'll see how well Trump fares during this downturn. Then, of course, there's the nuance of what kind of recession we're talking about because not all recessions are equal.

'

Right, this past recession was a financial recession that impacted Adjustable rate mortgage holders and had a misery index of 7.83 v comps Reagan's 19.33 showing the misery of the American people. No all recessions aren't equal but all recessions have been called "Great Recessions" and the only truly Great Recession since the Great Depression was 81-82 compounded by high inflation, high interest rates!!

Misery index (economics) - Wikipedia

Correction noted. Apologies for not having noted it earlier.

Thank you

It's a debate site; if you draw a conclusion from data and it's not reflected in it then expect to be called out on it. Your opinion doesn't trump the data, I'm addressing a baseless conclusion since you're not addressing any of the variables not represented in those numbers. Yes, there are more infected people in NY and NJ, there's no debate about that. However, once you start drawing conclusions that aren't found in the data you just provided (like comparisons on health care systems tied to those percentages), then as you often say, "that doesn't do a thing for your credibility".

The data speaks for itself and it is the data that you are ignoring. please explain how most of those liberal utopian countries the left wants us to be like have such high death percentage of infections? Conclusions are opinions but the data is official!!

 

[Conservative]

June Super Tuesday - The Revenge of the Establishment

Joe Biden’s delegate count at 1785 and climbing after he wins the primaries in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island, Maryland, New Mexico, South Dakota & Washington, D.C. Still awaiting results from Montana.

George Bush practically endorsed Biden as his people are forming a Biden Super Pac.

Biden's speech in Philly today

Here is what you want to ignore and still you spend 24/7 here as the silent majority waits, watches, and will flood the polls in November FOR Trump

Liz Peek: Left silences silent majority – but watch for this in November | Fox News

Where is this enthusiasm FOR Biden and not simply anti Trump rhetoric?

 

[ElChupacabra]

'

Right, this past recession was a financial recession that impacted Adjustable rate mortgage holders and had a misery index of 7.83 v comps Reagan's 19.33 showing the misery of the American people. No all recessions aren't equal but all recessions have been called "Great Recessions" and the only truly Great Recession since the Great Depression was 81-82 compounded by high inflation, high interest rates!!

Misery index (economics) - Wikipedia

The big factor for the current malaise is how quickly small businesses can rebound as well as how large corporations bring their workers back to the office. The big variable here is how the disease impacts consumers and their normal spending routines. Certain industries are likely to be adversely affected (tourism, hospitality) but others may bounce back quicker than others.

Thank you

:thumbs:

The data speaks for itself and it is the data that you are ignoring. please explain how most of those liberal utopian countries the left wants us to be like have such high death percentage of infections? Conclusions are opinions but the data is official!!

Yes, and as I've already stated many times over, my issue is with the conclusion you're reaching which isn't supported by that data. Now if there were direct correlation between the death rates and government handling of the disease as well as a healthcare failure, then sure, but those numbers aren't representative of those issues. Those are the dots you're connecting that aren't in that data set. I suppose I could say some countries are faring better than others because of unicorns.

 

[Conservative]

The big factor for the current malaise is how quickly small businesses can rebound as well as how large corporations bring their workers back to the office. The big variable here is how the disease impacts consumers and their normal spending routines. Certain industries are likely to be adversely affected (tourism, hospitality) but others may bounce back quicker than others.





:thumbs:







Yes, and as I've already stated many times over, my issue is with the conclusion you're reaching which isn't supported by that data. Now if there were direct correlation between the death rates and government handling of the disease as well as a healthcare failure, then sure, but those numbers aren't representative of those issues. Those are the dots you're connecting that aren't in that data set. I suppose I could say some countries are faring better than others because of unicorns.

Your issue is about conclusions made, why? Why are the actual posted verifiable results more of an issue for you?

As for the recovery, you really don't seem to have any understanding of the private sector leading me to believe you really weren't in the private sector. The recovery from the 81-82 and 07-09 recessions were starkly different and impacted the American people differently. Reagan addressed the private sector, Obama mostly the public sector, the results are verifiable, results that you claim I misinterpreted. The arbitrator of those results is the electorate not me or you.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Your issue is about conclusions made, why? Why are the actual posted verifiable results more of an issue for you?

It's a debate site. You post something and either people will agree or disagree with your comments/conclusions. I challenged your conclusion and you've provided nothing to support your claim. The data you keep citing doesn't provide the granularity to determine why the rates are what they are. If one country has a higher ratio of young people to old people, that's a factor. If one country is more densely populated than another, that's a factor and so on.

As for the recovery, you really don't seem to have any understanding of the private sector leading me to believe you really weren't in the private sector. The recovery from the 81-82 and 07-09 recessions were starkly different and impacted the American people differently. Reagan addressed the private sector, Obama mostly the public sector, the results are verifiable, results that you claim I misinterpreted. The arbitrator of those results is the electorate not me or you.

Where did I say those two recoveries were the same? Believe what you want, but I have been in the private sector in major corporations for most of my professional career (going on 26 years), and in small business for the past 5.

 

[Conservative]

ElChupacabra;1072076474]It's a debate site. You post something and either people will agree or disagree with your comments/conclusions. I challenged your conclusion and you've provided nothing to support your claim. The data you keep citing doesn't provide the granularity to determine why the rates are what they are. If one country has a higher ratio of young people to old people, that's a factor. If one country is more densely populated than another, that's a factor and so on.

My conclusions are very logical and based upon the official data, you want to challenge my conclusions which diverts from the official data which is the important thing, not the conclusion. You seem to want to make this about Universal Healthcare whereas I am pointing out that those utopian countries aren't doing as well as we are in handling the crisis and we have 328 MILLION people

Where did I say those two recoveries were the same? Believe what you want, but I have been in the private sector in major corporations for most of my professional career (going on 26 years), and in small business for the past 5.

then you have to realize that results matter but you don't show that in your posts. You tell me how I have misinterpreted the economic data I have posted?

 

[ElChupacabra]

My conclusions are very logical and based upon the official data, you want to challenge my conclusions which diverts from the official data which is the important thing, not the conclusion.

If you draw a conclusion, it's on you to back it up; that's what you have failed to do continually. All you do is post infection and mortality numbers and draw conclusions not supported by the data; that's not logical at all. What in that data addresses any of the conclusions you've drawn? Again, you can claim anything but if it's not supported by the data you cite, then it doesn't make much sense.

You seem to want to make this about Universal Healthcare whereas I am pointing out that those utopian countries aren't doing as well as we are in handling the crisis and we have 328 MILLION people

I'm not making this about anything other than addressing your unsubstantiated conclusions.

then you have to realize that results matter but you don't show that in your posts. You tell me how I have misinterpreted the economic data I have posted?

I cited one instance where you posted incorrect economic data, which you corrected, and I acknowledged.

 

[Conservative]

If you draw a conclusion, it's on you to back it up; that's what you have failed to do continually. All you do is post infection and mortality numbers and draw conclusions not supported by the data; that's not logical at all. What in that data addresses any of the conclusions you've drawn? Again, you can claim anything but if it's not supported by the data you cite, then it doesn't make much sense.



I'm not making this about anything other than addressing your unsubstantiated conclusions.







I cited one instance where you posted incorrect economic data, which you corrected, and I acknowledged.

Again my conclusions don't change the data which you continue to ignore

 

[ElChupacabra]

Again my conclusions don't change the data which you continue to ignore

I'm not ignoring the data, I'm asking you how you arrived to the conclusion those rates represent anything other than infection and mortality rates. So you can say it's better to be in the US than country X, but without understanding what factors impact the metrics you're citing, your conclusions are just grasping at straws.

 

[Conservative]

I'm not ignoring the data, I'm asking you how you arrived to the conclusion those rates represent anything other than infection and mortality rates. So you can say it's better to be in the US than country X, but without understanding what factors impact the metrics you're citing, your conclusions are just grasping at straws.

Wasn't talking infections, talking DEATHS!!

 

[ElChupacabra]

Wasn't talking infections, talking DEATHS!!

The same applies to either metric. What in that data supports any of the claims you've made that are "based on logic"?