Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Itssoeasy

Overheal wrote: »

No you’re seeing resurfaced media from SharpieGate which was a last year or 2018 I think.

Unless he’s being that stupid twice and I’m still behind the times.

Well I was listening to the podcast audio and didn't see the video but that's what it sounded like. It was audio of trump in Florida for this hurricane talking about a hurricane. I'm open to correction of that.

spacecoyote

Assuming things reopen, there will be a massive jump back the opposite direction on a Quarter by quarter basis.

More realistic might be to look at the year-on-year comparison, so q3-19 vs q3-20.

But you can be sure that there will only be focus from the Trump team on q2 vs q3 change.

All of these things are flawed when you compare though.

For example, if the Nasdaq opens at 100 today and closes at 90, its dropped by 10%. Tomorrow if it goes back from 90 to 100, it's gone up by 11.11%

So same movement in absolute numbers, but the way up sounds better in per cent terms.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Nothing much happened in the first quarter of 2020 in the US in connection with Covid though, so unless it did a staggering plunge at the very end of March, what caused that drop?

Covid caused it. The numbers are "annualised" so they look far bigger than the numbers reported from places like Germany. Which had a 1.9% fall in Q1 and a 10.1% fall in Q2. The 30+% fall reported for the US is actually a 9.5% fall compared to Q2 last year. Germany's (non-annualised) fall actually equates to an 11.7% fall compared to Q2 last year.
Believe me or don't, sources are all "above the fold" from a couple of Google searches. The reporting of the 32.9% fall is pretty easy fodder for "Fake News Lol" and I'm pretty annoyed at the media for reporting it as they have.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Covid caused it. The numbers are "annualised" so they look far bigger than the numbers reported from places like Germany. Which had a 1.9% fall in Q1 and a 10.1% fall in Q2. The 30+% fall reported for the US is actually a 9.5% fall compared to Q2 last year. Germany's (non-annualised) fall actually equates to an 11.7% fall compared to Q2 last year.
Believe me or don't, sources are all "above the fold" from a couple of Google searches. The reporting of the 32.9% fall is pretty easy fodder for "Fake News Lol" and I'm pretty annoyed at the media for reporting it as they have.

It’s reported as it always has been. And the press did clarify:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/30/did-third-economy-really-vanish-just-three-months/

“That 32.9 percent represents the loss of a third of the economy. Let that sink in. Now let it wriggle back out again — it is not exactly true. Why? The Commerce Department reports quarterly GDP at an annual rate to allow easy comparisons to other time periods. Remove the annualization, and we see the economy contracted a still-abysmal 9.5 percent.

Another headline I saw called it a wipe out of the last 5 years of growth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/business/economy/q2-gdp-coronavirus-economy.html

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

It’s reported as it always has been. And the press did clarify:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/07/30/did-third-economy-really-vanish-just-three-months/

“That 32.9 percent represents the loss of a third of the economy. Let that sink in. Now let it wriggle back out again — it is not exactly true. Why? The Commerce Department reports quarterly GDP at an annual rate to allow easy comparisons to other time periods. Remove the annualization, and we see the economy contracted a still-abysmal 9.5 percent.

Another headline I saw called it a wipe out of the last 5 years of growth:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/30/business/economy/q2-gdp-coronavirus-economy.html

On this side of the Atlantic all the initial headlines used the 32.9% figure for the US while the headlines for the UK and Germany stories used their annual comparative rates.
And yeah, they clarified but as seen on this thread a few days later it still causes confusion.

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On this side of the Atlantic all the initial headlines used the 32.9% figure for the US while the headlines for the UK and Germany stories used their annual comparative rates.
And yeah, they clarified but as seen on this thread a few days later it still causes confusion.

A bit but it’s far from deliberate and it doesn’t qualify as misinformation: this is how we’ve reported our GDP for decades upon decades. It’s how it was reported during the Great Recession/Banking Crash as well.

aloyisious

Given the risk of Covid-19 infection from another person and the way Trump and some GOP members have handled that risk at a personal level, I'm not surprised at this Private GOP convention move on health grounds. I'm a bit surprised that Trump would accept cutting out the media without demur, though I expect the weather will be rolled out as an excuse. I assume those on medical lockdown will attend the convention.

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/world/trump-news-live-president-s-renomination-vote-to-be-held-in-private-as-florida-braces-for-70mph-winds-from-tropical-storm-isaias/ar-BB17tkci?ocid=msedgntp

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

A bit but it’s far from deliberate and it doesn’t qualify as misinformation: this is how we’ve reported our GDP for decades upon decades. It’s how it was reported during the Great Recession/Banking Crash as well.

When a set of statistics give rise to such misinterpretation, don't blame the media or the reader for the misinterpretation... Blame the presentation of the statistic or even the statistic itself. A graph/chart should be intuitively clear and ought not require a phD to interpret it.

Itssoeasy

I'm sure I'm not breaking any news here but Donald trump saying they may not know the result of the election on election night as has been traditional isn't some kind of indication of fraud or rigging. As Tom brockaw and Tim russert correctly said twenty years ago during NBCs 2000 presidential election night coverage when it bacame clear that their calls on Florida were premature both times, was that the law around elections only say it's the first Tuesday in November, but it doesn't say the result has to be known on the first Wednesday of November.

Overheal

It's a modern phenomenon to actually know what the result will be on election night. They use exit polling to guess at it.

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not breaking any news here but Donald trump saying they may not know the result of the election on election night as has been traditional isn't some kind of indication of fraud or rigging. As Tom brockaw and Tim russert correctly said twenty years ago during NBCs 2000 presidential election night coverage when it bacame clear that their calls on Florida were premature both times, was that the law around elections only say it's the first Tuesday in November, but it doesn't say the result has to be known on the first Wednesday of November.

Clearly, Trump is hoping against hope that this is a tight race. That's the only way they wouldn't know on election night just who won the presidency.

Itssoeasy

Overheal wrote: »

It's a modern phenomenon to actually know what the result will be on election night. They use exit polling to guess at it.

Yeah I've seen NBC go through their methodology on calling races for election. It's exit polls but also over the years networks have built up a stockpile for lack of a better phrase of counties in certain states that are reliable as indicators of how a state will go and also there are states themselves who are shoe ins.

Itssoeasy

briany wrote: »

Clearly, Trump is hoping against hope that this is a tight race. That's the only way they wouldn't know on election night just who won the presidency.

Which is why people who want Donald trump out of office on November 3rd needs to vote either by mail or in person if they feel comfortable to do that. Opinion polls are fine to a point but I have this worry that voters will see the polls and decide their vote won't matter. Every vote matters in any election. And all these social media hashtags and all that may make people feel all warm and fuzzy(a kitten can give you that), social media trends have not and hopefully never will equal an actual vote.

briany

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Which is why people who want Donald trump out of office on November 3rd needs to vote either by mail or in person if they feel comfortable to do that. Opinion polls are fine to a point but I have this worry that voters will see the polls and decide their vote won't matter. Every vote matters in any election. And all these social media hashtags and all that may make people feel all warm and fuzzy(a kitten can give you that), social media trends have not and hopefully never will equal an actual vote.

It's true of any election that you have to actually go and vote for the candidate you want. Generally speaking, I think that's usually been achieved by having an inspirational candidate you really want, whereas this time around it would be more created by the dread around another 4 years of Trump. I would say Trump is in serious trouble if just the regular Democrat voters turn out, because I don't see Trump getting the numbers he did last time. Too many swing voters who took a punt on the man last time, have seen what he's about, and will say, 'nah...'.

TomOnBoard

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm sure I'm not breaking any news here but Donald trump saying they may not know the result of the election on election night as has been traditional isn't some kind of indication of fraud or rigging. As Tom brockaw and Tim russert correctly said twenty years ago during NBCs 2000 presidential election night coverage when it bacame clear that their calls on Florida were premature both times, was that the law around elections only say it's the first Tuesday in November, but it doesn't say the result has to be known on the first Wednesday of November.

The point he is probably trying to make is that mail-in ballots are counted so long as they arrive within a number of days after (usually 2? but longer in an emergency?) the election. So, if large numbers use mail-in ballots, the election couldn't be called on election night.

Brexit is a good example, the polls said Remain on the day and as the results came in Remain led but within a few constituencies declaring it was clear that Remain was underperforming the polls. Similarly if Urban areas report first then it's fair to assume the GOP will make a "comeback" as Rural areas declare and vice versa.

Leroy42

Weren't the Brexit polls tight the day before and the momentum was with Leave over the previous days with the gap narrowing?

If the polls are that close, with the margins of error, then it would be wrong the call any vote based on them.

one armed dwarf

Polls were tight in the last couple weeks and leave started to edge it at the end, but the exit polls said Remain.

Least that's what I remember, was living in London at the time

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Weren't the Brexit polls tight the day before and the momentum was with Leave over the previous days with the gap narrowing?

If the polls are that close, with the margins of error, then it would be wrong the call any vote based on them.

That's not the point. The Exit poll was 52-48 for Remain. (Still pretty much withing margin of error.) The first few constituencies were even higher than that. But analysts (and myself) could see that for the early constituencies that while they went for Remain it was by a much lower margin than expected and that bode very well for Leave.

Overheal

Have something soft nearby to occasionally smack yourself in the forehead with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY

“We’ve done 55, it’ll be close to 60 million tests,” Trump said. “And there are those that say you can test too much. You do know that.”

“Who says that?” Swan asked.

“Read the manuals, read the books,” Trump shot back.

“Manuals? what manuals?” Swan asked. “What books?”

“We’re testing so much because we had the ability to test because we came up with testing,” Trump said. “Jonathan, we didn’t even have a test. when I took over, we didn’t even have a test. Now, in all fairness—”

“Why would you have a test?” Swan chimed in. “The virus didn’t exist.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/who-says-that-a-stunned-jonathan-swan-grills-trump-in-heated-back-and-forth-over-covid-19-testing/

dwayneshintzy

I'm absolutely amazed Trump and his administration agreed to that interview in the first place.

I've no doubt that he'll be defended by some for it, but it's ridiculous for people questioning Biden's mental acuity to watch that and think Trump is just grand himself.

listermint

Trump forcing a foreign owned software company to sell simply because it's foreign owned. Now saying the government should 'get a cut'. Tik tok.


Everything is about transactions for him what's in it for me. He has no other operandi.

TomOnBoard

Just watched the Axios interview with Trump...

Oh my sweet Jeebus!

The interviewer was excellent, but OMG, Trump was off the wall, bat-**** crazy! I seriously think someone is setting him up at this stage!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY

Quin_Dub

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Just watched the Axios interview with Trump...

Oh my sweet Jeebus!

The interviewer was excellent, but OMG, Trump was off the wall, bat-**** crazy! I seriously think someone is setting him up at this stage!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY

That Interview and the Wallace one shows the unique problem that Trump has in the absence of his rallies.

When he can rally , he got to stand in front of an adoring crowd and say whatever he wanted unchallenged for an hour or more. He got loads of clips for his Facebook ad campaigns etc. and the media favourable to him would run the highlight reels until his next rally.

Now though in order to get air-time, he's forced to expose himself to real-time media scrutiny either in his "press conferences" or in these 1:1 interviews and they painfully expose his lack of basic knowledge and comprehension of the most basic workings of Government and an apparent willful lack of understanding of things like statistics and simple mathematics.

Leroy42

Every other serious media outlet should be feeling pretty ashamed this morning and senior reporters the same.

This is some, relatively, young journalists standing up to the blatant lies and nonsense that Trump routinely delivers but this guy stands up to him, brings facts to the interview and doesn't simply let Trump change the subject.

How none of them got anywhere close over the last 4 years is a serious stain on their professionalism.

It is clear that Trump has no grasp of the facts. He looks at the printouts and its like the 1st time he has seen them. In contrast the interviewer scans them, understands them and asks questions.

Trump is left fumbling around with A4 pages like an inept and unprepared sales guy trying to blag his way through a presentation.

peteeeed

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Just watched the Axios interview with Trump...

Oh my sweet Jeebus!

The interviewer was excellent, but OMG, Trump was off the wall, bat-**** crazy! I seriously think someone is setting him up at this stage!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaaTZkqsaxY

easily his worst performance in front of a camera , tied himself up in knots never mind the interviewer being so on the money with his questions , this is a car crash performance, when he gets his charts out and confuses himself "we are lower than the world "

pixelburp

So only now journalists are finding their testicular fortitude, just when Trump's apparent popularity is taking a steady turn to the worse? Or don't have the threat of White House press pass removal hanging around their becks? What bravery.
There's no surprise or shock to be had watching this HBO interview, and is similar to the Fox-Wallace one. When pressed, Trump is revealed to be out of his depth and incapable of a straight answer (even by the standards set by professional politicians). And of course he can't just say "yes I read my reports". Oh no. Nobody has ever seen such reading of reports, better than anyone else Swan has ever interviewed. What a child. You can really hear and see Swan's clear exasperation trying to her Trump's inane ramblings and segues.


It's all ammunition for the attack ads as the election cycle really ramps up, but otherwise there's nothing new to be gleaned here.

TomOnBoard

pixelburp wrote: »

So only now journalists are finding their testicular fortitude, just when Trump's apparent popularity is taking a steady turn to the worse? Or don't have the threat of White House press pass removal hanging around their becks? What bravery.

There's no surprise or shock to be had watching this HBO interview, and is similar to the Fox-Wallace one. When pressed, Trump is revealed to be out of his depth and incapable of a straight answer (even by the standards set by professional politicians). And of course he can't just say "yes I read my reports". Oh no. Nobody has ever seen such reading of reports, better than anyone else Swan (the interviewer) has ever interviewed. What a child.

It's all ammunition for the attack ads as the election cycle really ramps up, but otherwise there's nothing new to be gleaned here.

Frankly, I would not be watching any Trump interview hoping to 'glean' anything new from it. Trump doesn't do 'gleanable' interviews I dont ever expect much from them except for their usefulness to highlight his steady spiral into utter madness.

King Lear comes to mind...

Water John

In fairness, journalists haven't had that one to one type of access in the past. You had no opportunity to follow up and chase him down the rabbit burrow. KAC and co knew they were in trouble and had to get him out in the media. Problem is Trump couldn't handle it. Real conspiracy theorists would have Kelly and George coming up with the strategy to demolish Trump.

one armed dwarf

Where are Trump's boards cheerleaders gone anyway? Don't hear that much from them now.

It's a sign of something perhaps that even in the context of talking about a hugely contagious virus he has to boast about his crowd size. He really can't help himself. If people can't see how ill this man is by now then they are blind.