New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Is Russia engaged in a disinformation campaign against the United States?

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
They completely support my point.

Look at them for Christ's sake.
Actually, no, they don't. Unless your point is that Obama's "big success" on the economy was that it didn't keep declining. Of course, there's never been a time in the entire history of, well, economics, where that happened. But you won't let that get in the way of your propaganda effort, will you?
 

FakeName

Governor
Actually, no, they don't. Unless your point is that Obama's "big success" on the economy was that it didn't keep declining. Of course, there's never been a time in the entire history of, well, economics, where that happened. But you won't let that get in the way of your propaganda effort, will you?
My point was clear and the facts prove it.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
There are two models I know of that employed multiple economic indices and no approval ratings: Bob Erikson and Chris Wlezien's leading economic indicator model and Nate Silver's economic index. Erikson and Wlezien's model simply takes into account continued quarter growth for elections since 1952, and uses the 10 leading economic variables (which are shown to be representative of overall strength in the economy), with quarters closer to the election weighted more heavily. Silver's model takes into account rolling averages of a month to a year of seven economic variables, which range from personal income growth to forecasted GDP to the stock market for elections since 1968.

The results of these models were remarkably similar: small Obama victories. Erikson and Wlezien, who authored the great book The Timeline of Presidential Elections: How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter, actually overshot Obama's 3.9pt win by about a point, calling for a 5pt Obama victory. Silver's model slightly undershot it by having Obama take the election by about 3pt. The average of their results equals a 4pt Obama victory, or for Romney to hit the infamous 47%, which is pretty much where the numbers fell.

The average of the two most thorough economic models nailed the election results. This clearly indicates that given the economy, Obama should have won in 2012. A one or seven point victory would still indicate that 2012 was mostly about the economy – precision is more luck than anything else.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/18/mitt-romney-lost-election-because-of-economy

Nominal GDP popped to 5% in late 2011, which was still being reported (and adjusted) into mid-2012.

View attachment 46551

And that kept it above 4% on a YoY basis for the first half of 2012. And if you will recall, the MSM was uniform in their propaganda efforts, reporting Q4 was (typically) when all the growth was being captured so we should expect another big print just as the election was occurring (frankly, I think you were one of the cheerleaders pushing that nonsense). They weren't so diligent in their reporting of dissident predictions that it likely would not (which, of course, it didn't).

You are arguing against math. But then, what else is new?
I posted the numbers for q1 and q2 for 2012....the rest is just f*king bullshit. Romney didn't lose because of GDP growth in 2011.
 
Last edited:

Mick

The Right is always right
Really? So when Steele reported that Carter Page met with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister he made it up?
Yes. He fabricated the story based off of news reports like this one in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-advisers-public-comments-ties-to-moscow-stir-unease-in-both-parties/2016/08/05/2e8722fa-5815-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html

Page spoke briefly with Arkady Dvorkovich who was deputy to Deputy PM Medvedev. The rest is fiction.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Facts you don’t learn within your right wing echo chamber...

“March 21, 2016: Trump meets with the editorial board of the Washington Post. Asked about his foreign policy team, he names, among others, Page and George Papadopoulos, who later pleads guilty to lying to the FBI about contacts he had with the Russian government during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5128614/carter-page-gop-memo-fisa-warrant/?amp=true

I will graciously accept your apology.

;-)
Carter Page was an unpaid volunteer to the Trump campaign. By the end of the summer 2016 he was off the campaign entirely. Facts matter. Left wing psychosis does not.
 

Mick

The Right is always right
Disinformation? The Steele dossier has been largely corroborated.

Example:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-true-proven-929839?amp=1
ROFL!!!!!!! Not one thing in the Steele dossier has been corroborated that wasn't already in the public sphere when Steele wrote the corrupt document.


Carter Page never met with Russian PM Medvedev while in Moscow....as the dossier asserts.
Michael Cohen never traveled to Prague and never conspired with Russians.....as the dossier asserts.
There is no Russian embassy in Miami.......or anywhere near Florida for that matter.......as the dossier asserts.
There was no pee tape.........as the dossier asserts.

Etc. etc. etc.

Why the hell do you think Mueller didn't cite anything in it? For kicks and giggles?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#45976dc76867

Lord, you sure do enjoy humiliating yourself. You do it well by continuing to get duped by alt-left phony conspiracies and propaganda. The low left wing IQ is an ugly affliction.

:D
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I posted the numbers for q1 and q2 for 2012....the rest is just f*king bullshit. Romney didn't lose because of GDP growth in 2011.
It was because of the economic "recovery" narrative that the MSM was pushing, which, whether you agree or not, the pop in (late) 2011 GDP was part of. Go read the link that quotes LEFTY statisticians (like Nate Silver) who have demonstrated that it is the TRENDS in economic stats that drive electoral chances. And the trends that were being pushed in the media in late 2011 through the election were clearly consistent with a recovery (that never arrived). That included a bullshit projection of a repeat of the 2011 fourth quarter GDP surge in 2012, and the dropping unemployment rate, that was possibly "improved" in late 2012 with the help of the friendly democrat bureaucrats in BLS, and was total bullshit when considering the droves of workers who were dropping out of the labor force at the time.

You know, it's quite ironic that you, who consistently pushes the bullshit narrative that Obama's economic policies were successful, now find yourself in the position of having to admit they were not. I agree with you - the economy sucked in 2012. It sucked throughout the Obama administration. But that's not my point - which is that the (false) media narrative of economic recovery (that you pushed incessantly at the time - and still do!) helped Obama win reelection.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
My point was clear and the facts prove it.
I frankly have no idea what your point was (beyond Obama good, Trump bad). As for your facts, what they show is the trends begun during the Obama Administration have continued through Trump's. What they don't show (as mine did) is that these recent trends remain far below their long term trajectories in what is a non-recovery, or, more accurately, a depression.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Carter Page was an unpaid volunteer to the Trump campaign. By the end of the summer 2016 he was off the campaign entirely. Facts matter. Left wing psychosis does not.
Whether he was paid is irrelevant. Your colleague said it was a lie to note that Trump named him as one of his five foreign policy advisers. As you can see, it’s a fact.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
ROFL!!!!!!! Not one thing in the Steele dossier has been corroborated that wasn't already in the public sphere when Steele wrote the corrupt document.


Carter Page never met with Russian PM Medvedev while in Moscow....as the dossier asserts.
Michael Cohen never traveled to Prague and never conspired with Russians.....as the dossier asserts.
There is no Russian embassy in Miami.......or anywhere near Florida for that matter.......as the dossier asserts.
There was no pee tape.........as the dossier asserts.

Etc. etc. etc.

Why the hell do you think Mueller didn't cite anything in it? For kicks and giggles?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2017/01/13/the-trump-dossier-is-false-news-and-heres-why/#45976dc76867

Lord, you sure do enjoy humiliating yourself. You do it well by continuing to get duped by alt-left phony conspiracies and propaganda. The low left wing IQ is an ugly affliction.

:D
You people can’t decide on your positions. You alternate between claiming the dossier is a pack of lies and claiming it reported on already known facts.

But the many Trump/Kremlin contacts were kept secret by Trump and the Kremlin. And that was the essence of the dossier.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
Page reportedly previously told congressional investigators that he never met the president. Both assertions seem to run counter to comments Page made during a December 2016 public appearance in Moscow broadcast live by the Russian network RT.


"I've certainly been in a number of meetings with him and I’ve learned a tremendous amount from him," Page said at the time. "In terms of actual briefings, you know, that’s not something I like to talk about."
That’s the thing with Trump and his cronies - that they are liars is obvious. The only question is which ones are lying at any given time.
 

FakeName

Governor
I frankly have no idea what your point was
That is your problem right there. Maybe review so that you know what you are talking about.

As for your facts, what they show is the trends begun during the Obama Administration have continued through Trump's. .
Thank you. You are getting it!



......what is a non-recovery, or, more accurately, a depression.
You are in desperate need of a dictionary or an econ 101 class. No we are not in a depression or even a recession.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It was because of the economic "recovery" narrative that the MSM was pushing, which, whether you agree or not, the pop in (late) 2011 GDP was part of. Go read the link that quotes LEFTY statisticians (like Nate Silver) who have demonstrated that it is the TRENDS in economic stats that drive electoral chances. And the trends that were being pushed in the media in late 2011 through the election were clearly consistent with a recovery (that never arrived). That included a bullshit projection of a repeat of the 2011 fourth quarter GDP surge in 2012, and the dropping unemployment rate, that was possibly "improved" in late 2012 with the help of the friendly democrat bureaucrats in BLS, and was total bullshit when considering the droves of workers who were dropping out of the labor force at the time.

You know, it's quite ironic that you, who consistently pushes the bullshit narrative that Obama's economic policies were successful, now find yourself in the position of having to admit they were not. I agree with you - the economy sucked in 2012. It sucked throughout the Obama administration. But that's not my point - which is that the (false) media narrative of economic recovery (that you pushed incessantly at the time - and still do!) helped Obama win reelection.
You should reread what I've written about Obama's economic policies. Success is a relative term. We were losing 750,000 jobs per month at the end of 2008. In what month after 2009 did we see job losses? You don't like it, but the fact is that his policies stabilized the national economy....we did not lose the million or so jobs projected to be lost if GM and Chrysler had gone under.

The stock market recovered from having lost 50% of its value.

So are you saying so many people read Nate Silver that it cost Mitt the WH? How many votes were influenced by me posting here?
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
You should reread what I've written about Obama's economic policies. Success is a relative term. We were losing 750,000 jobs per month at the end of 2008. In what month after 2009 did we see job losses? You don't like it, but the fact is that his policies stabilized the national economy....we did not lose the million or so jobs projected to be lost if GM and Chrysler had gone under.

The stock market recovered from having lost 50% of its value.

So are you saying so many people read Nate Silver that it cost Mitt the WH? How many votes were influenced by me posting here?
So you are back to suggesting that, absent Obama's expansive government interventions in the market, the economy would have lost 750,000 jobs a month until the last job was extinguished. That, of course, is abject bullshit! The economy stabilized because the economy ALWAYS stabilizes after a downturn, even when the government doesn't go ape shit on the markets. The fact that it "stabilized" is in no way remarkable. The fact that it didn't "recover" for the eight years Obama was in office IS. There was no economic recovery. But people like you went around citing the bullshit economic narratives the MSM was spewing that everything was just great, after Obama "fixed" what was wrong with the markets. And yes, that had an effect on people's perceptions, at least in 2012. By 2016, obviously, they weren't going to be fooled again (which is why Trump won and not Hillary).
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
That is your problem right there. Maybe review so that you know what you are talking about.



Thank you. You are getting it!





You are in desperate need of a dictionary or an econ 101 class. No we are not in a depression or even a recession.
Then answer one simple question - why haven't the world's central banks been able to raise interest rates from (essentially) zero for over a decade?
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So you are back to suggesting that, absent Obama's expansive government interventions in the market, the economy would have lost 750,000 jobs a month until the last job was extinguished. That, of course, is abject bullshit! The economy stabilized because the economy ALWAYS stabilizes after a downturn, even when the government doesn't go ape shit on the markets. The fact that it "stabilized" is in no way remarkable. The fact that it didn't "recover" for the eight years Obama was in office IS. There was no economic recovery. But people like you went around citing the bullshit economic narratives the MSM was spewing that everything was just great, after Obama "fixed" what was wrong with the markets. And yes, that had an effect on people's perceptions, at least in 2012. By 2016, obviously, they weren't going to be fooled again (which is why Trump won and not Hillary).
1. More people voted for Hillary than voted for Trump....so people's perceptions were that even with Hillary's baggage, she'd be a better president. She sucked as a candidate, but Trump, according to about 3 million more voters, sucked even more.

2. You keep trying to imply that somehow the 2012 jobs numbers were manipulated by BLS to help Obama. Here is what the ADP jobs report said...

ADP Numbers for September 2012:
Private sector jobs increased by a solid 162,000 jobs, however, this was less than the gain for August (which was initially reported at 201,000). August and July jobs numbers were revised slightly downwards. We will have to wait until Friday, October 5, to see if the ADP numbers are in line with the BLS jobs numbers that will be released that morning.

https://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/10/adp-report-september-2012-162000-jobs.html

ADP Employment Report Says 158,000 Private Sector Jobs Gained for October 2012

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/adp-employment-report-says-158000-private-sector-jobs-gained-october-2012

 
Top