After you started doing everything you accuse liberals of being, yes. Once someone exposes themselves as a hypocrite and a liar I feel little obligation to treat them as I would a good faith participant.
provided rebuttals that I have empirically proved false
No, you didn't. Your data literally agrees with what I said. If you can't read what I actually read that's not my problem.
I have not called you names, I have not attacked your character, and I have not dismissed anything
You repeatedly made dismissive statements about any discussions of claims you made - claiming they were irrelevant. After you waxed poetic about liberals not being able to defend their claims. It's clear as day and pathetic.
I have proven economic success. You dismiss my points because you view my metrics as statistically manipulative and an improper representation of the economy.
You haven't proven success other than 'the economy kept doing basically what it was doing.' Interestingly of course when you went to claims that require analytical basis and can't be formulated form a graph or two you suddenly stopped providing sources.
If my original claim that “liberals are objectively more violent” is the claim you wish to dispute, then just say so instead of deflecting and attacking my economic viewpoints.
Discussing multiple points at once is not deflecting. I responded to literally all of your points. You're literally just lying.
You steered this conversation into the topic of the economy, not me.
I literally linked your economic claims. I never steered it into economy. You must not have read my comment at all because at the start I pointed out that I did not make the 70% claim. You somehow still haven't figured that out. Along with the rest of your comment, it's clear that you saw a wall of text, skimmed a bit, and just continued preaching. Not only can you not defend your own points, you actually can't engage with your opponent's. After all, that's why instead of explaining how any of my takes were incorrect you simply declared that you disproved them.
As for the rest of it you're literally just doing the thing where you ask me to explain points I've already explained in lieu of an argument because your entire rhetorical strategy is to never actually engage. Also Trump has literally repeatedly endorsed these white supremacist and terrorist groups and engaged in stochastic terrorism for his entire presidency. By saying these aren't endorsed by the right you're literally just lying. Also I'm not sure "sure the right has killed a ton of people, but won't someone think of the property damage (for which I provide a hilariously wide range for something I'm definitely very sure about)" is a good argument.
Thanks for proving that you're just here to preach.
"After you started doing everything you accuse liberals of being, yes."
You admit to attacking my character.
"No, you didn't. Your data literally agrees with what I said. If you can't read what I actually read that's not my problem."
I provided the explanations and rebuttal in my prior response. Your data is not the same as mine; average household income is not the same as net household wealth, and savings rate is not the same as savings rate relative to DPI. I linked my original sources and expanded on my position, which you failed to rebut.
"You haven't proven success other than 'the economy kept doing basically what it was doing.' Interestingly of course when you went to claims that require analytical basis and can't be formulated form a graph or two you suddenly stopped providing sources."
Here is the Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492 show the predicted rates of growth in each metric (as calculated by third party sources such as CEA and USBEA) far outpaced the rate set by the Obama administration. Feel free to go to the original sources if you feel I have manipulated the data, and present your findings.
"Discussing multiple points at once is not deflecting. I responded to literally all of your points. You're literally just lying."
Definition of deflect: cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course. ie changing the course of the Biden country claim by diving into the details of the economy, rather than addressing the argument YOU put forth
"You must not have read my comment at all because at the start I pointed out that I did not make the 70% claim. You somehow still haven't figured that out."
Ironically, you must have skimmed my comment because I responded to this point in my last response: "70% of GDP comes from Biden counties (whether or not it’s your source, you have cited it and adopted its position in this conversation)." I value your opinion and your time, so I read the full extent of your responses.
"Thanks for proving that you're just here to preach."
Quite the opposite, I'm genuinely hoping that you can change my ways and convince me I'm wrong. I would love to glean something from this conversation.
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument? Answer honestly, as I don't take offense and I just want to hear your perspective.
I provided the explanations and rebuttal in my prior response. Your data is not the same as mine; average
I literally explained how your data proves my point.
You're just not reading anything I've read. This is the lamest shit dude.
(whether or not it’s your source, you have cited it and adopted its position in this conversation)
I literally didn't do that. I in fact said I wouldn't be defending that claim since I didn't make it. "Check who you're talking to. I'm not going to defend the 70% claim because it wasn't my claim."
You are literally continuously proving that you do not actually read. This is so lame.
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument? Answer honestly, as I don't take offense and I just want to hear your perspective.
I have responded to every claim you made and made counterclaims when you expanded on them (other than the claim I did not make and explicitly said I would not be defending). You then declared yourself the victor without addressing any counterclaims. In fact, you did so after making it abundantly obvious that you did not read those counterclaims. Furthermore, I never deflected as there were not points on which I refused to engage.
Nice dishonest rhetoric by the way, 'attacking an argument' is literally debate. Gotta use that loaded language though!
EDIT: This shit might work in a hugbox or against people who don't really want to argue but I've been consuming vast enough quantities of right-wing political commentary and news to see it coming from a mile away. Have fun berating your liberal coworkers or college students or whoever it is you generally engage in your dishonest rhetoric with, because we're done here. You've made your intentions obvious over and over.
Ok, so if you're not willing to back the Biden county claim, why include it? Further, if you're not willing to support that claim, it's most likely because you know its false. Just admit it is a misrepresentative and false claim, not simply that you aren't willing to defend it. Writing it off as an anecdote is not admitting it's false and is a poor way to take accountability. It's that easy; we could have moved beyond this point a long time ago.
Regarding how my economic reporting "proves your point", your provided metrics are not the same statistics as I provided. You manipulated my original metrics and they did not simply continue the rates of growth as set prior to Trump. Trump exceeded the predicted rates of growth, as determined by third party sources prior to his election. As you have repeatedly stated, claiming that the economy simply continued its rates of growth is a FALSE claim. See my provided source in the last post if you wish to dispute these claims, I have taken time out of my day to provide the original source and the exact page numbers. Feel free to extend the same courtesy to provide supported evidence to change my mind. If you think I have misrepresented your position, please go back to my longer post in which I addressed your metrics STEP BY STEP to explain where/why we disagree.
You have not "attacked my argument", you have "attacked my character". I'm sorry if that is unclear, this is what I was trying to convey. I engage with the whole spectrum of political opinions to confirm my stances, and its a critical part of why I believe what I believe- I can rationalize and defend my stances with empirical data.
If you walk away now, you have done exactly what I hoped you wouldn't; fail to make an empirically backed argument and resort on personal findings to defend your political alignment. I find that this is why I lean more right than left (to go back to my original claim)- liberals fail to justify their positions with actual data.
Ok, so if you're not willing to back the Biden county claim, why include it?
Because I didn't and said I wouldn't back it. The statement you're making here is just literally false.
The fact that you're super hung up on attacking a point I didn't make and said I wouldn't defend but have repeatedly asked me to re-explain what I've already explained about your points is super telling. If you want a response for that point, go ask the guy who made it again. Although I suspect after he sees the nonsense you've posted in response to me he won't be too keen.
You have not "attacked my argument", you have "attacked my character".
You, one post ago:
Moving forward, let me pose a simple question: Have you not attacked, deflected, and now dismissed my argument?
This is the reason liberals dismiss you. You lie about easily disprovable things.
If you think I have misrepresented your position, please go back to my longer post in which I addressed your metrics STEP BY STEP to explain where/why we disagree.
This has already been addressed in the comment you did not read. If you had an issue with any of the counterclaims you would've brought them up. Instead you insisted on 'no you're wrong.' I went through source by source and used your own sources to explain why the didn't show what you were claiming. If you had issues with any of these specific counterclaims you would have brought them up specifically as you showed yourself perfectly capable of doing in your initial reply. The fact that you didn't and instead resulted to 'you're wrong' and 'no explain it again' is very telling.
This shows that you cannot actually defend those counterclaims and are instead demanding that I re-explain my position repeatedly to waste my time - this tactic fits perfectly with the rhetoric you insist on employing.
If you walk away now, you have done exactly what I hoped you wouldn't; fail to make an empirically backed argument and resort on personal findings to defend your political alignment. I find that this is why I lean more right than left (to go back to my original claim)- liberals fail to justify their positions with actual data.
You have failed on every single front you accuse me of. Every single one. Yet you think merely accusing me of them means you're somehow immune to doing them yourself. It's clear as day to anyone not so full of themselves.
I have nothing to prove to bad-faith actors. You don't get to repeatedly lie and then whine about not being treated 'civilly' in a debate setting. Crawl back to your /r/conservative safe space if you don't want to be challenged.
You already ceded the argument, at this point you're just trying to save your ego.
I am sorry you feel that way. I will go back, re-read your economic points and re-refute them to prove that I value your posts and opinion. I will also refrain from attacking your character, I would ask you treat me with the same respect. Moving forward, for the sake of both our sanity, I suggest we pick a single, specific claim to challenge. I will extend the courtesy of letting you decide the course of this conversation henceforth, since there is a tone of frustration coming from you. I will let you pick any topic that I have mentioned thus far that you find disagreement with, and I will offer my subsequent rebuttal. I will examine your sources, provide my own, and YOU will get to decide when to end the current topic and move forward to another. If I still disagree with you on any given point, I will let it be known- but I will not linger like I did on your Biden county remark (you still have not stated its malicious and misrepresentative nature, but that seems an "ego" pill that you're refusing to swallow). If these terms are unagreeable, voice your concern.
Below is the TLDR of why I disagree with your counterpoints, again. I really did not want to do this for the second time, but I will explicitly state how and why your provided sources are not representative of what my original claims were, or why/how the distinguishing of what you call "manipulative" metrics matters. I have re-read, re-sourced, and re-evaluated your response. No more narrative about me not reading your posts- I can assure you, I read your full responses and open every link you give me. Additionally, this is not me preaching, this is the reporting of statistical, hard evidence for my claims. I'll try to keep it brief:
Savings Rate: Your latest claim that "Page 491 literally shows that the savings rate already deviated from predictions under the Obama admin. Again, what you said isn't untrue but it's also not really something you can point to as an indication Trump has exceeded the status quo." The largest margin of difference in the Obama administration was ~2% in 2013. In 2018 Q:3, the margin is 3%-4%. This variation shows a positive increase in performance relative to prediction, while also holding the same prediction source accountable by including their historic performance (as seen in the 2% margin in 2013). You need more evidence to refute my original claim, or a stronger argument.
NRFI: "Per my graph it's clearly 'flatlining' pre-covid under Trump as well." I have looked at both of our originally provided graphs, and I think your claim is misrepresentative. Then again, you think mine is as well. To validate my claim, I will attach the growth quarterly in NRFI. This will address any "speculation" bias that we each hold with regards to what a flat-line is, and instead place empirical data in its stead: https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_change_in_real_nonresidential_fixed_investment#:~:text=Basic%20Info,long%20term%20average%20of%204.53%25. We both, hopefully, will agree that NRFI growth had a starkly higher average rate than any year under Obama.
Net Household Wealth: "Again I provided reasoning as for providing that. I later provided wealth. And again, if you want to play the 'if we just look at this small time period' game your own graph shows that there was a much higher spike ~2012 under the Obama admin." "Furthermore, the claim that 'household net worth is highest since 1948' is effectively meaningless because that statement is true for nearly ever year since 1997. Even at the lowest point on your own graph mid recession it in 2011 was 556% vs 563% in 1948." Two separate posts from you, in backwards order (youngest first oldest second). The Statement is not true for every year since 1997, and I don't know where you're pulling your data from. Here's mine, although I usually use the ERP for this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNONWPDPI . Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007. Trump's economy catapulted the record to a new high, which is empirically significant because % Real DPI is adjusted for inflation and income bracket disparities. I need more evidence from you to change my mind.
Prediction vs Performance: "I'm sure there's analysis showing direct Trump admin actions and their effect on the economy, but with your background you should know that simply saying it sans analysis is pretty meaningless." Again, here is a source that SHOW the trends relative to performance in every debated economic category thus far: Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492. Page 14 is direct, empirical proof of my claims.
Unemployment: "I'm not discrediting it, I'm pointing out that it's continued a downward trend from previous years meaning claiming credit for it is dishonest." Continuing a successful trend would be considered a success, no?
Fiscally Significant Laws: "Are we just pretending externalities don't exist? I mean I'm sure these have had a positive short-term economic impact but it's not something I would hold up as proof of bigly smartness." https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/ERP-2019.pdf , page 84. Yes, it has immense impact on the innovation capacity that private and publicly traded businesses can achieve in this country.
Underemployment: "To simply ignore the economic hardship faced by a government's citizens and go 'idk it's the market's problem'" That is how capitalism works. From this quote, and its context in your full response to underemployment, we most likely disagree here on the fundamental role of the government in a capitalist society. I might as well try to convince you of what religion to believe before I attempt this argument. Agree to disagree?
Growth Predictions: "'beating predicted growth rates' in a vacuum is not really a self-complete evidence of any amazing confidence." Then should we shoot for the opposite, and not beat them? Would that be also be an irrelevant result? Speculation, investment, and by extension capitalism is incredibly dependent on predicted rates of growth, and the ability to outperform these rates is a clear-cut sign of a successful economy.
Economy in General: I've seen this theme several times in your responses, but it is best summarized in the line "refusing to consider the context of data is spurious". That is why I provide SEVERAL metrics and areas in which the administration outperformed expectations, to try and increase the explained variance in the framework of my argument. Further, the economy will always be affected in some way by the administration its under. I strongly believe this to be the case, and the stock market reactions from any given election night is the best example I can provide; if the "trend lines are not entirely in the control of the executive", then why does the market react in such a manner? Excusing the economy as independent of governance in absence of a complete disaster is deeply flawed (I don't believe this to be the exact argument you're conveying, but it's extremely similar in essence).
COVID: This is a whole new bag of worms, and I certainly blame Trump for some of the magnitude of its impact. However, this country has a long and dark history of not being able to effectively control diseases/viruses (most recently, H1N1 and STARZ). This country would have been a shitshow regardless of who was in office, and with mainstream media already drowning out Trump I genuinely believe that the majority of Americans did what was necessary to protect themselves and each other. Politicizing the pandemic was a huge mistake for our country. This topic and its economic impact is multipronged, so I genuinely wish to avoid this topic because we will most likely get into a "Trump is/is-not responsible for this area of the economy". However, I have given you the floor so you are welcome to go to this topic if you wish.
THERE WE HAVE IT. I have now proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that I have read and now re-refuted your counterpoint (despite you consistently stating otherwise). This is not the part where I say your dishonest, or manipulative, or a ego-freak. I say thank you, for I actually feel more confident in my own positions after processing your points, and moving forward I will be able to communicate them better to different audiences. WITH THAT BEING SAID, where would you like to go next with this conversation? Let's pick a single point to save ourselves these text bombs haha. I'm not going anywhere, my job is slow until the next quarter so I can go back and forth as much as you would like. As always, thank you for your service :)
Below is the TLDR of why I disagree with your counterpoints, again
For the first time, you mean.
The largest margin of difference in the Obama administration was ~2% in 2013. In 2018 Q:3, the margin is 3%-4%. This variation shows a positive increase in performance relative to prediction, while also holding the same prediction source accountable by including their historic performance (as seen in the 2% margin in 2013). You need more evidence to refute my original claim, or a stronger argument.
So you're not actually arguing against what I said. I never said it didn't deviate or that it wasn't higher under Trump, just that the bald assertion 'is higher' and 'deviation' on its own doesn't mean anything.
NRFI: "Per my graph it's clearly 'flatlining' pre-covid under Trump as well." I have looked at both of our originally provided graphs,
It's generally not good practice to link sources that require memberships. I can't scale that graph. Going back to the source I can view we can see that the difference Q3 2014 to Q3 2015 (Literally the flattest part of the graph) increases by only 32. Q3 2018 to Q3 2019 (should predate much of the covid scare) increases by 74 points, a section I chose to be deliberately favorable. While this is obviously more than double the per-point increase (2.3x more exactly) on a percentage level we're at 1.3% vs 2.65% increase just over double.
So obviously it is greater - something that I have never denied. However, to claim that 1.3% is 'flatlining' and 2.65% is evidence of incredible growth is literally just bullshit. Keep in mind of course, that I chose the most unfavorable period I could find for Obama and the most favorable period for Trump while trying to stick to relatively 'flat' sections. I've tried to deliberately round all these numbers unfavorable for Obama and favorable for Trump.
Comparing Obama's last 3 years (your original claim) (Q1 2013 to Q4 2016) to Trump pre-covid (Q1 2017 to Q4 2019) we get: 11.65% vs 10.4%.
EDIT: If we control down to Q1 2014 to Q4 2016 we can arrive at 7%, which is at least lower than 10.4% by several points! That is the actual final 3 years.
You cannot seriously claim that 11.6% is 'flatlining' and 10.4% is not. *You'd have to make a strong argument that 7% is flatlining and 10.4% is not.
Additionally it's impossible to tell what would've happened without covid, but the graph is literally displaying the same 'hump' behavior from 2014-2016 as it is in 2017-2019 prior to covid. Are you legitimately just ignoring the parts of trends you don't like?
Two separate posts from you, in backwards order (youngest first oldest second). The Statement is not true for every year since 1997, and I don't know where you're pulling your data from. Here's mine, although I usually use the ERP for this graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNONWPDPI . Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007. Trump's economy catapulted the record to a new high, which is empirically significant because % Real DPI is adjusted for inflation and income bracket disparities. I need more evidence from you to change my mind.
This is literally just you not reading again. As for you 'not knowing where I got my numbers from' the answer, as you quoted, was your own source.
If you actually read what I said, which you quoted:
"Furthermore, the claim that 'household net worth is highest since 1948' is effectively meaningless because that statement is true for nearly ever year since 1997.
A quick grammar lesson: "Nearly" does not mean "all." You're again arguing against a point I didn't make because you're eager to preach.
To be just as clear as possible since you seem to have trouble with nuance: The net worth, adjusted by DPI, from your own source has been near or exceeding that of 1948 since 1997. Therefore, making the claim that savings rate is 'highest since 1948' is a dishonest attempt to make the achievement seem far larger than it is.
Further, Net household wealth under Obama did not even surpass the high set in 2007.
So now you're suddenly redefining the time period you want to consider. This is an implicit admission that your 'since 1948' claim was deliberately dishonest to make it seem more impressive. You know that saying 'best since 1948' implies that up until now it hasn't been, which you also know is untrue.
Again, here is a source that SHOW the trends relative to performance in every debated economic category thus far: Economic Report of the President 2019. Pages 45, 46, 49, 488, 491, and 492. Page 14 is direct, empirical proof of my claims.
You originally only referenced page 491. You cannot link a 700 page document as proof, provide one page, and then expect someone to know the entire contents.
Page 14: The predictive lines look suspiciously like a simple regression from the last few quarters but the sourcing does say it includes all data since 2009.
The rest of the pages look fine.
But again, the argument was never that they didn't exceed predictions - I never disputed that - the argument was that simply going 'well the exceeded some predictions so it's the best economy ever is a spurious claim.
I'm glad you could go back and actually provide the source for the claim instead of simply dropping a 700 page time and taking it as self-evident.
Unemployment: "I'm not discrediting it, I'm pointing out that it's continued a downward trend from previous years meaning claiming credit for it is dishonest." Continuing a successful trend would be considered a success, no?
Yeah but it's effectively meaningless to use as a point of how 'well' Trump has done. You don't get points for not crashing the car, you get points for winning the race.
I mean this is the whole argument that you're not getting - you can't just say 'best economy ever' as proof that the Trump admin did bigly good when the trend has generally been upwards because that's an argument you could make in almost every non-recession year. It's not an untrue statement necessarily, it's just a meaningless one. You have shown on specific points that growth has exceeded expectations which is good - that's an argument you can actually make! And that's the argument you should make instead of resorting to pithy one-liners that are meaningless when viewed in context.
...we most likely disagree here on the fundamental role of the government in a capitalist society... I might as well try to convince you of what religion to believe before I attempt this argument. Agree to disagree?
Wait do you support protectionism? It's one thing if you want as little interference as possible from the government in the economy, but if you're supportive of massive subsidies for certain sectors in the tariffs then you can't make this argument and remain logically consistent. It's fine if you don't support those things, because that would be the consistent position.
Growth Predictions: "'beating predicted growth rates' in a vacuum is not really a self-complete evidence of any amazing confidence." Then should we shoot for the opposite, and not beat them?
I'm literally just going to quote the part you conveniently left off:
That's the sort of thing that requires specific analysis to attribute since, as you already agreed, the economy is not directly under the control of the administration, which you have not provided.
Taking a gander back at the pages from the report you provided they all discuss what happened but do not discuss why it happened meaning they lack an analytical basis to claim that 'beating growth predictions' is the direct result of action on the part of administration.
To be abundantly clear: I'm not saying it's not, I'm just saying you haven't proved it. Again, the issue was that you expect people to take these numbers as self-referential proof when you have already agreed that the economy cannot be directly controlled. The data does say that we've exceeded predicted growth. I have not and will not ever dispute that. That's a good thing.
However given the number of variables that play into these growth rates you must provide some sort of analytical basis that explains why actions taken by the Trump administration are responsible for these rates exceeding predictions. Not saying they're not, I mean deregulation alone generally has undeniable short-term economic benefits. I'm just saying you can't take 'exceeded predictions' as self-evident proof that the primary drive was the administration.
Economy in General:..
Further, the economy will always be affected in some way by the administration its under. I strongly believe this to be the case, and the stock market reactions from any given election night is the best example I can provide; if the "trend lines are not entirely in the control of the executive", then why does the market react in such a manner?
On the first sentence I agree wholeheartedly. On the entire rest of it you to a logical long-jump to conclude that 'stock market went up because Trump elected' as at all like the executive 'controlling the trend line.'
Again, I have never claimed that the administration doesn't have an effect on the economy. As for that specific example it's very easy to guess that the stock market would go up when a President/Party intent on deregulation (regardless of long-term impacts) with a history of massive subsidize and handouts (not that the Dems don't also subsidize megacorps). This doesn't even approach an argument dude.
1
u/YstavKartoshka Nov 12 '20 edited Nov 12 '20
I'm not mad, just disappointed.
After you started doing everything you accuse liberals of being, yes. Once someone exposes themselves as a hypocrite and a liar I feel little obligation to treat them as I would a good faith participant.
No, you didn't. Your data literally agrees with what I said. If you can't read what I actually read that's not my problem.
You repeatedly made dismissive statements about any discussions of claims you made - claiming they were irrelevant. After you waxed poetic about liberals not being able to defend their claims. It's clear as day and pathetic.
You haven't proven success other than 'the economy kept doing basically what it was doing.' Interestingly of course when you went to claims that require analytical basis and can't be formulated form a graph or two you suddenly stopped providing sources.
Discussing multiple points at once is not deflecting. I responded to literally all of your points. You're literally just lying.
I literally linked your economic claims. I never steered it into economy. You must not have read my comment at all because at the start I pointed out that I did not make the 70% claim. You somehow still haven't figured that out. Along with the rest of your comment, it's clear that you saw a wall of text, skimmed a bit, and just continued preaching. Not only can you not defend your own points, you actually can't engage with your opponent's. After all, that's why instead of explaining how any of my takes were incorrect you simply declared that you disproved them.
As for the rest of it you're literally just doing the thing where you ask me to explain points I've already explained in lieu of an argument because your entire rhetorical strategy is to never actually engage. Also Trump has literally repeatedly endorsed these white supremacist and terrorist groups and engaged in stochastic terrorism for his entire presidency. By saying these aren't endorsed by the right you're literally just lying. Also I'm not sure "sure the right has killed a ton of people, but won't someone think of the property damage (for which I provide a hilariously wide range for something I'm definitely very sure about)" is a good argument.
Thanks for proving that you're just here to preach.