sycasey said:
LMK5 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
LMK5 said:
Unit2Sucks said:
You mean I'm showing you Federal Reserve data on 6 real outcomes for real Americans, including the data on real wages you covet, and now I have the added burden of proof to demonstrate that a specific Trump policy was the impetus for each outcome? I guess you alone would also get to decide on the weight of the evidence also, right? Pretty high-and-mighty of you wouldn't you say? Wouldn't it be a little more gentlemanly for you to show some hard data proving how Trump had nothing to do with the data presented?
I've been consistent in my request and you've consistently been unable to provide any evidence.
Here's my hard evidence: the charts above all begin during the Obama era and continue today. None of them evidence any new trends that started under Trump. If you think the economy is great now, how do you think it was different under Obama? The biggest difference is that one was accomplished with decreasing government stimulus (eg deficit reduction) and one was accomplished with increasing government stimulus.
At this point I'm done with conversation since it's obvious you are more interested in pretending that you have won as opposed to actually trying to convince anyone that Trump has done anything for the middle class, other than take credit for trends that began under Obama. I hope you have benefited by those trends whether you credit Obama, Trump or no one.
If you think the Democrats are going to win by using the economy as an issue you are dreaming. All the data show that people are better off today than they were in 2016, and that's what counts. It doesn't matter if it was because of Trump or Obama. Incumbents don't get bounced on the economy when all the indicators are up, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it. You'll admit that much won't you? Voters just see their circumstances better than they were, and regardless of who made it happen, the data all point upward. They don't analyze whether the administration orchestrated it or if a rising tide raised all boats. Voters aren't that sophisticated. That's why candidates talk in broad platitudes, not numbers. This is elementary stuff.
The Democrats must attack Trump's lack of integrity to win. That's all they've got. If they can't exploit that vulnerability--and it's a big one--then they're clowns.
I would agree that the economy is generally a strength for Trump if things stay as they are now (that's a big if) and that most voters won't draw a big distinction.
That is not the argument Unit2 has been making, though. He's talking about actual economic cause and effect, not voter behavior.
This thread was started to point out that Trump was going to use disinformation to win. After hamfisted attempts to pretend that Trump actually helped people, it's come full circle and now LMK5 has acknowledged that all that matters is that people feel like their economic position has improved. Which is the whole point of the disinformation campaign.
It's pretty clear that no matter what the world looks like, Trump will use every propaganda outlet he has available (Fox News, false campaign ads on FB, confessional Medal of Honor winner Rush Limbaugh - unless he's dead by then), Sinclair, Falan Gong, etc. to convince people that this is the best economy ever and that he's solely responsible. He will convince them that he didn't put his own casinos out of business by being dumb enough to build his own competition, that he didn't defraud through his charity, that he didn't send Rudy to Ukraine (except when he admits that he did), etc.
It's 1984 except the GOP was smart enough to realize they only needed to con 40% of the country. Everyone else is eyes wide open and either doesn't care or is a Democrat at this point.
