It all depends what your definition of shit is. Conservatvies would obviously jab back with a litany of things Dem Presidents have been involved with.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
It all depends what your definition of shit is. Conservatvies would obviously jab back with a litany of things Dem Presidents have been involved with.
Here is an interesting stat (from Oliver Blanchard, the former Chief Economist of the IMF): between 1948-2012, the average growth rate of GDP under a Republican administration was 2.8% per year. Under a democrat: 3.9%, a difference of 1.1% a year or roughly 4.5% for a full administration. In today's U.S. GDP, that's roughly 0.9 Trillion dollars for a a 4-year term! And I'm not even talking about the compounding effect.
Besides, since 1950, there has been 10 economic recessions in the U.S. Only 1 of them (1980) has started under the watch of a Democrat. The other 9 started with a Republican in the WH. Of course, the 2001 recession started right after Bush took office and should be under the Clinton column (to make it 8-2), and some might want to blame Carter for the 1981 recession (not sure, but even then it will be 7-3).
There absolutely no proof that Republican presidents are better for economic growth. Of course, the party controlling congress can play a role, but we had GOP presidents with Dem-controlled congress, and vice versa.
Last edited:
Its tricky though since the 81 recession had a more global cause than some other recessions from the ripples from the energy crisis and Iranian revolution of 1979.
I know, and that's why I had a caveat there. In the end, even after accounting for that and for the 2001 recession, still more recessions occur under Republicans.
He is getting dragged into a worse scandal than Watergate.
There was an interactive tool showing that this can be made to show anything based on which metric of the economy is used and which metric of power is used (unemployment, inflation, or GDP growth, president, house, or senate)
Trump has now officially endorsed Moore's campaign via a phone call 
Not exactly a shock as he's previously been indirectly supporting Moore by bashing Doug Jones. Despicable stuff.
Not exactly a shock as he's previously been indirectly supporting Moore by bashing Doug Jones. Despicable stuff.
Shagging kids is now absolutely fine apparently. If it's good enough for the President it's good enough for you.
First, please share a link.
Second, please visit this site: http://presidentialdata.org/
Average real GDP growth per year under Democratic Presidents: 3.75%
Average real GDP growth per year under Republican Presidents: 2.6%
Average unemployment per year during Democratic Presidents: 5.27%
Average unemployment per year during Republican Presidents: 6.24%
Democratic Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $25.3 billion per year
Republican Presidents’ annual spending increased by an average of $70 billion per year
Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Democratic Presidents: +1.92%
Average yearly growth in Stock Market returns under Republican Presidents: +0.64%
Democratic Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 2.37% of GDP
Republican Presidents’ annual deficits averaged 3.88% of GDP
Total trade deficit under Democratic Administrations (in millions): $4,198,231
Total trade deficit under Republican Administrations (in millions): $5,844,269
If these are more or less the numbers, then the picture is clear!
At least we know Moore won't win then.
Trump's endorsement is a death knell for any campaign.
Trump's endorsement is a death knell for any campaign.
In Alabama? Trump got 2/3's of the vote over Hillary.
In Alabama where Trump endorsed Strange and they voted for Moore.
In Alabama they could literally watch their lord descend from the heavens and endorse the Dem candidate and they'd vote Republican.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/
Edit: to be fair, most of the options that I've tired seem to suggest that whatever the combinations you sue, Dems do a better job.
Last edited:
"That was a fake Jesus. He looked like he was from the Middle East!"
Fake Jews?
That’s one hell of a son of a bitch
It's how Reagan won the cold war. By out borrowing the USSR into financial ruin. The USSR never had access to the level of credit that the USA did, to the extent that the USSR was basically a cash economy (how ironic), they could only spend/invest what they actually had. The US ramped up spending to a level the USSR had no hope of matching, but they tried, and their economy imploded.
“Acid washed”that’s not even a thing.
Actually, it is, it's a thing from the 80's where you basically intentionally spilled bleach on jeans to ruin them, cause it was the fashion at the time. The process was called "acid washing".
Still, he doesn't know wtf he is talking about!
Yeah I know, I had a pair.
Wha, what's tatters, precious?!
He probably meant taters, you know, boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew, POE TAY TOES.
You shouldn't admit to that!
Served with butter emails.
Well that's stupid considering bleach is an alkaline.
I don't drink tea but if I did it would be all over my screen.
He was trying to say bleaching, right? But went with acid washed.
And you!
They way you put it, it appears that USSR were otherwise equal in GDP and the only difference was the ability to borrow? Couldn't be further from the truth.
He's right. I bought new lip salve today. Always exciting.
I think America isn't returning from this.
Suppose it depends what twists and turns that are yet to come, but yeah, seems pretty significant. The President openly endorsing an alleged abuser with several allegations him - whilst of course being one himself.
Or rather, not in one piece.
Imagine a British PM coming out in defence of Saville?
Imagine a British PM coming out in defence of Saville?
Imagine the British PM being Saville! An old, creepy, senile TV personality assuming the top job...seems about similar.
- Status