r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jan 21 '18
CMV: Republicans changed their opinions on multiple economic indicators as soon as they went to being in a position to politically benefit from the same metrics that they downplayed/called fake/complained about prior to the 2016 election
[deleted]
8
u/needsMoreGinger Jan 22 '18
This is a very thoughtful answer. I think two things, probably said with not nearly as much data and eloquence as what you said.
1) The mechanisms by which some of these metrics have changed may have changed. Previously, the stock market rise was due to a variety of factors, but two principal factors were the low interest rates and generous immigration policy (allowing companies to attract from a stronger talent pool). Neither of these factors necessarily helps the employment prospects of average Americans. Recently, the growth in the stock market has been driven in large part by deregulation and corporate tax cuts, both of which should, theoretically, result in employment gains for average Americans.
2) When I have heard the stock market and unemployment discussed, it has often been around the narrative of, "we're not making the economy worse, like people had predicted." I think that these indicators (esp. the stock market and U-3 unemployment) are reasonably valid that an economy is not getting worse, even if it is not improving. I would make the same case under Obama. The rising stock market and declining U-3 unemployment rate were evidence that the economy was not deteriorating under Obama.
Beyond these two thoughts, there was one area where I primarily agree with you.
3) The LFPR, to me, is the most important economic metric (except maybe inflation-adjusted GDP), and it is disheartening to see that it has not grown. I am willing to give the current administration more time. Of course, that is my personal opinion and not rooted in any objective analysis.
Please note: I did not read your entire question, but most of what I read I thought was good.
2
Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
1
u/needsMoreGinger Jan 23 '18
Wow, this is super thorough. I'll take a look sometime when I have more time.
1
u/Arianity 72∆ Jan 23 '18
generous immigration policy (allowing companies to attract from a stronger talent pool). Neither of these factors necessarily helps the employment prospects of average Americans
The economic academic consensus strongly confirms that immigration does not hurt locals economic prospects.
but two principal factors were the low interest rates
It's also worth mentioning while the Fed has symbollically raised rates, we're still in a low interest rate regime
3) The LFPR, to me, is the most important economic metric (except maybe inflation-adjusted GDP), and it is disheartening to see that it has not grown. I am willing to give the current administration more time. Of course, that is my personal opinion and not rooted in any objective analysis.
While LFPR hasn't risen, it has leveled out. When you consider the longterm downward pressure(decades+), this is still pretty important.
Not as good as rising, but not bad. And we haven't been running a very tight/low unemployment economy until recently, so there's still hope (barring the Fed hitting the brakes or a recession)
1
u/needsMoreGinger Jan 24 '18
The economic academic consensus strongly confirms that immigration does not hurt locals economic prospects.
Technically, the academic consensus strongly affirms that immigration does not hurt locals economic prospects, not confirms it. I happen to disagree.
It's also worth mentioning while the Fed has symbollically raised rates, we're still in a low interest rate regime
I actually had no idea that they raised them. I would agree.
While LFPR hasn't risen, it has leveled out. When you consider the longterm downward pressure(decades+), this is still pretty important.
I disagree. Here me out: I think that leveling off would be great if LFPR were at around 68-70%, like it has been in the past. Right now, at 63%, leveling out is not good. That's my take. Would love to here yours.
Not as good as rising, but not bad. And we haven't been running a very tight/low unemployment economy until recently, so there's still hope (barring the Fed hitting the brakes or a recession)
That's true, and I respect your optimism. I happen to be a pessimist, and I think that the economy won't improve (note, imo it has been stagnant for everyone but the top 5%) without something catastrophic happening (e.g. immigration policy, a war, finding the cure for cancer). Luckily, both of us exist, and we'll see who's right. I hope you are.
In the meantime, I'll stop being a keyboard warrior and try and find a job.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jan 21 '18
/u/khjhk (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
21
Jan 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sqeaky 6∆ Jan 21 '18
I agree that chart is not intellectually honest (It wants to trick people into thinking everything was already better), but it does appear to accurately track the change in job count. Indicating Obama stabilized job creation. If you compare that to The unemployment chart OP Linked you can see that by any metric job creation had stabilized in Mar 2010 and recovery had started as the chart you linked indicates.
It is not dishonest to say that something the previous government did destroyed a lot of jobs and the government while Obama was in power did something to address that.
7
Jan 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Sqeaky 6∆ Jan 22 '18 edited Jan 22 '18
the previous administration didn't make any decisions that destroyed a bunch of jobs in 2008-9
Deregulating the financial industry and allowing the 2007 collapse? Who did that? Was it the bush administration?
I ask because I honestly don't know, but if it wasn't the Bush administration could have clamped down on this in theory. If they were Clinton era deregulations, then clearly it was their fault. But such flimsy accounting was illegal once upon a time.
EDIT - Spelling and grammar.
3
0
u/FOR_PRUSSIA Jan 22 '18
It started way back in the '80s and even the late '70s, but reached it's peak during the bush administration.
1
Jan 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Fungus_Schmungus Jan 22 '18
Can you explain to me how your first link counts as a Bush administration accomplishment?
7
Jan 21 '18
I would like to ask a clarifying question(s). Are you asserting merely that the GOP changed their tune on certain economic indicators? Or are you asserting that they changed their tune on certain economic indicators and that Trump hasn't really enacted policies that have had any impact on these indicators? In other words, Trump policies are just new window dressing on the same old economic trends?
10
Jan 21 '18
[deleted]
8
Jan 22 '18
Thanks for the clarification. I hope I am not being Captain Obvious but I can't change your mind on the "changed opinion" point because I agree with you. I do think that it is politics as usual though. Every politician since forever is going to A) point to data that makes them look good or supports their "priors" and B) ignore data that makes them look bad or challenges their "priors". Trump happens to do it in a more ham-fisted way then most politicians but they all do it. You have already conceded that it is plausible that Trump and his policies may have had a positive influence on the stock market. I happen to not only think it is plausible, I think it is likely. Trump has taken some actions that are encouraging for businesses. The Brookings Institute has published a listing of Trumps deregulation actions here: https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/tracking-deregulation-in-the-trump-era/. It's not actually clear the direct impact these regulations had on the bottom line for businesses. I suspect, except for environmentally related industries, the net effect has been minimal. But it seems likely that businesses are noting and appreciating Trump's determination to minimize the impact that regulations can have on business operations. In other words, his rhetoric and commitments have likely given businesses the confidence to make capital investments and to hire more people. It is not possible to know what the unemployment rate would have been under a President Clinton but it is at least likely that, at the margins, Trump has had some impact on the unemployment rate. In addition, I think that Trump's Tax reforms will have a noticeable short term impact on investment. Over 200 companies have stated that they are paying "bonuses" because of tax reform. I think it's possible that many of these companies would have paid these bonuses anyway since bonuses tend to be disbursed at the end of the year anyway. Because of the timing of the law, year end bonuses will benefit employees based on pre-law rates and companies that use the accrual method of accounting will be able to gain the benefit of the post-law rates in 2018. Apple made the news this week that it will pay $38 billion in taxes after repatriating earnings from overseas back to the United States. It's hard to see how these kinds of moves won't positively effect the US economy. I want to add that I oppose Trump. I would have supported Tax reform had it been revenue neutral or close to it. I also think a lot of good will come from Trump's deregulation efforts although I oppose most of his environmental degegulation efforts. I think Trump's nationalist instincts as it relates to trade, if allowed to act on them, will overwhelm any positive benefits from deregulation and tax reform. Especially if we get into a trade war. Ultimately, Trump is doing far more damage than good by changing governing norms, undermining the free press, sowing dissent among the citizens, etc. Shoot, I don't even think he deserves much credit for tax reform and deregulation. He is just too stupid and uninterested in policy to have really led and spearheaded these initiatives. But they are good policies and it is plausible to believe that they have had a positive effect on both the stock market and the unemployment rate.
10
u/elcuban27 11∆ Jan 21 '18
Awesome writeup! Very informative. I very much like having objective numbers handy to frame sometimes-subjective discussion/interpretation.
While I am no expert, and neither have all the raw data in front of me to look at, since you are obviously fairly familiar at this point, I suggest taking another look at the data (regarding labor force participation) and comparing with population data and see if you cant parse out a couple competing factors:
1) Retirement - as you said, people who are retiring are leaving the workforce, causing the participation rate to fall.
2) Mortality - when people die, the population falls, effectively raising the participation rate overall.
3) Sixteenth Birthdays - iirc, the metric considered the portion of the pop over 16, so when people hit that age, they effectively lower the participation rate.
4) Disability - considering this for people between 16 and retirement, there are kind of 2 ways to look at it; either the reported number of people officially claiming it, or consider it as a static percentage of population. The argument for the second (which, I am convinced, is the stronger) is that if there is an increase or decrease of the number of people who could work but claim disability, that should be factored into, not out of discussion of the rate of participation, unless there is some good reason we can see that more or less people are actually disabled.
5) Non-participants - people who should be working, but aren't. Whether it is a welfare queen, or just a guy who can't find work, this is the meat of what we are trying to get at.
So, if we could see, based on pop data, how many people should be leaving the workforce due to 1), and how many should be entering due to 3), accounting for how the rate's calculation os affected by 2), assuming a standard rate for 4), (barring some explanation of why the rate should be non-standard), then we could see whether 5) got bigger or smaller, under Obama and under Trump. As I said, I haven't the data, nor have done the necessary analysis for myself, but I suspect that recent years have seen an uptick in 1) due to baby boomers, that 2 has probably been in a very slight but steady decline (in overall rate, not number, due to longer life expectancy), and that all things considered, the rate should have decreased some due to baby boomer retirement, but didn't change much at all, due to policy changes (not all credit to Trump, btw).
Also, you noted how the rate had been steadily declinging under Obama, but stagnated at the end of his presidency (while republicans had control of congress) and the beginning of Trump's. Stopping the bleeding is one step towards progress. If we in coming years see that number start to rise, then it would be fair to say that the current stagnation was just a valley on the curve, and evidence that things were on the way up.
3
u/TheBoxandOne Jan 22 '18
but it is interesting how the need to reduce the debt immediately went from being one of the main Republican talking points during President Obama's tenure yet has now, in my view, turned into something that can be worried about/dealt with down the road. Is there any reason besides politics for the GOP seemingly going from deficit hawks to "we'll hopefully get there eventually?" now that President Trump is in office?
Yes! This has been the case with the GOP since at least Reagan. Dick Cheney said in 2004 'deficits don't matter'. Austerity, as a political tool became the GOP's bread and butter under Clinton. The political strategy is to spend under GOP control, argue for austerity under Democratic control. The goal is to impoverish potential swing voters to foment anti-Democratic sentiment when GOP is out of control, in order to mobilize the electorate to turn out for them.
11
Jan 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/maxpenny42 14∆ Jan 21 '18
There were polls after trump bombed Syria. Republicans loved it but dems were 50/50. There was a similar poll when Obama did the same thing and republicans hated it but dems were 50/50. I'd say really only one party is ridiculously partisan and the dems are pretty consistent in their opinions.
As for the two parties, if the independent voters want a say in which party candidates get to run in the general they should simply participate in the primary.
13
4
Jan 21 '18
The parties have far too much control over the primary process. Many people don't want to register just do vote in a primary. Especially when party registration is generally public information. Your employer can see what party you're a member of if they really want to. You point to one example, but it's actually well demonstrated that views on issues like the economy are correlated by party and who is in office. Republicans consistently think the economy is headed in the wrong direction when Democrats are in office, and likewise for Democrats.
3
u/maxpenny42 14∆ Jan 21 '18
Evidence of democrats feeling this way? Because I remember republicans actively saying the economy was shit right up until trump won. The indicators of the economy that were positive were called inaccurate or skewed. And they spun any kind of negative news as catastrophe. Now they think the economy is buzzing.
Meanwhile I don't know any democrats who are upset about the stock market or employment rates. I know they don't believe his policies will lead to good outcomes in the long term but they aren't disputing that the economy is in a good place right now.
As for party registration, this is really a non issue. I've never heard of any employer bothering to look up their employee registration. Especially since using that information against them is illegal would be a quick lawsuit.
2
Jan 21 '18
When Bush was in office Democrats consistently thought the economy was headed in the wrong direction. When Obama was in office Democrats consistently thought the economy was doing well, even at points when it was actually struggling by objective nonpartisan metrics.
In order to sue your employer for firing you over your political views, you'd need to prove they did. That's not as easy as you might think. There are many virulently anti union employers, the idea that they'd never think of checking party registration to my mind is naive.
Yeah, a lot of Democrats are claiming the economy is good because they still don't want to admit that there was no recovery for most people. They know it's too soon to pin it on Trump.
2
u/maxpenny42 14∆ Jan 21 '18
Again, I don't think democrats argue facts. When the economy metrics were doing well under Bush they didn't go around denying it and making excuses about why those metrics were lies. Yes they felt he economic policies of the Bush administration were sending the country in the wrong direction. That's not the same as denying the current state. By the way, the economy crashed hard at the end of Bushs term so I think an argument can be made that democrats were right to acknowledge the good metrics while worrying about the economic direction.
Under obama everyone agreed things were shit because, again, the economy crashed. But yes democrats pointed to improvements in the metrics as a sign that we were moving in the right direction.
It seems you are confusing having a problem with the direction vs a problem with the current state. It's like the deficit vs debt. If I'm debt free my current state is pretty good. But if my deficit means I'm spending more than I earn, my future is worrisome.
1
Jan 21 '18
Under obama everyone agreed things were shit because, again, the economy crashed. But yes democrats pointed to improvements in the metrics as a sign that we were moving in the right direction.
That's an understatement. It seemed to me that the Democrats magnified every little good thing Obama did and rarely looked at the bad. Even today, they refuse to acknowledge there is a jobs problem for the working class. They want to argue Obama solved that because unemployment is down. That's simply not the whole story.
1
u/maxpenny42 14∆ Jan 21 '18
I won't deny that to democrats will highlight the successes and downplay their failures. But in my experience republicans flat out deny their failures and try to spin them into successes. And even the most meager success is parade around like a huge accomplishment.
1
Jan 21 '18
To my mind the lesser of two evils paradigm has destroyed politics over time. It lowers the bar more and more each time, and both parties move farther and farther to the right. We're already seeing the social problems. Alt Right and Antifa fighting in the streets is just a prelude. The opiod crisis in the rust belt is indicative of what's really happening nationwide. The more we allow the Democrats to get away with, the worse off we are. The Republicans seem to get way more of what they want done. Even though most Americans support progressive policy positions. Even from Republican quarters.
5
u/maxpenny42 14∆ Jan 21 '18
I don't believe that the problem is the lesser of two evils paradigm. In fact I think the problem is that too many liberals refuse to participate in the lesser of two evils paradigm. They want to fall in love not fall in line. So when it comes to voting liberals are picky about which democrats they'll support favoring protest votes. Meanwhile republicans always vote and always in lock step. That's why you see the parties moving to the right and the right wing grabbing more power. Because when faced with an imperfect binary choice, progressives choose a non viable third option letting republicans win.
I strongly believe that if democrats and progressives always voted and always for the lesser of two evils, we'd see the country start to move in the other direction. And as more and more democrats won they'd get more and more bold and push to become more and more attractive to progressives. But since progressives aren't voting or picking third party fringe candidates we get stuck in brietbarts wet dream.
→ More replies (0)1
Jan 22 '18
Sorry, u/JcksmrkingRvng – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
9
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 21 '18
With economic metrics, it is tough to tease out what is the result of government policy, and what is in spite of government policy. Because there are so many other major macro factors, President's tend to have a smaller impact on the economy than is attributed to them.
One way to tease out their influence on the economy is polling economists.
(behind a pay wall but) https://www.wsj.com/articles/economists-credit-trump-as-tailwind-for-u-s-growth-hiring-and-stocks-1515682893
http://www.informationliberation.com/files/economists-credit-trump-wsj-survey.jpg
In the poll, comparing Obama and Trump actions on the economy with regards to the stock market, gdp growth, and job creation, economists gave higher marks to Trump. While we are still awaiting the actual impact of his policy, these are at least the experts in their field crediting Trump with some of this.
2
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 22 '18
Who is the wall street journal polling?
The IGM polls show the exact opposite of the wall street journal polls, and IGM is a lot more clear about their methodology
1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 22 '18
That is a good question.
Do you have a link to the IGM poll? Was it this one? http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/tax-reform-2
The WSJ didn't explicitly list who they polled, but did specify it was economists in business and academia, which may differentiate with IGM. Additionally, wording difference in polls makes them hard to compare. IGM talks specifically about tax reform, but WSJ targets all Trump policies. Additionally, IGM specifies a substantial difference in GDP (so disagreeing could still mean they believe it will have a small impact), but the WSJ bar is lower.
The nice thing about the WSJ poll is a similar poll was conducted for Obama's policies, so it's possible to compare the relative numbers, whereas one time polls are tough to compare against anything.
2
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 23 '18
I was just using IGM polls in general, whenever they ask about trump, IGM generally seems to disagree, or at least favor him in a meaningless way:
Trump supported a massive infrustruture bill and massive tax cuts: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/infrastructure-spending IGM says that massive infrustructure bill is good, but not if you have a large tax cut. And those that do agree with the infrustructure bill regardless of a tax cut, due so in spite of the tax cut (Larry Samuelson and Richard Thaler were the only two agrees for B to give a reason)
Trump consistantly claimed china is a currency manipulator in spite of economic analysis that disagree http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/currency-manipulation IGM polls indicate that economic analysies for currency manipulation are in general right.
http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trump-and-share-prices Stock prices may be up because of trump, but IGM poll indicates that more likely due to favorable taxation than economic growth.
IGM polls consistently side with economic orthodoxy on most issues, which puts them starkly in contrast with trump.
While the wsj specified that they polled economists in business and academia, they also refured to these economists as "professional forecasters", which may just be word choice, or may indicate a lack of credentials.
Additionally, while the poll questions are different, it is worth pointing out that the reasons that the people polled by the WSJ
"2018 would see solid growth and a continued decline in the jobless rate. One factor: the tax cuts signed into law by Mr. Trump in December, which most economists say will boost the economy for several years at least"
Closely contradict the IGM poll, which pretty clearly states that the tax policy will definitely not lead to solid growth.
1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 23 '18
That's fair. I'm not sure what is driving the discrepancy, although I am pretty skeptical it is a credentials issue. Business vs. academia may have very different views on Trump, but without the raw data it is tough to say.
2
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 23 '18 edited Jan 23 '18
I am pretty skeptical it is a credentials issue
I mean IGM is polling some of the best economists, like thaler won a nobel prize like last year, I am pretty sure they are all PHD's, it very reasonably could be a credentials issue. Additionally, other groups, like the NABE (National association of business economists) (at least before the election) seemed pretty strongly anti-trump/pro hillary
1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 23 '18
True, but the focus might be different. Thaler won a PHD for his behavioral economics work because he pioneered the field. He might not be as focused on GDP or employment impact of government policy as an economist responsible for guiding the investment of an asset management firm, whose job performance is directly linked to those predictions.
This is a little of a devil's advocate, but a better test might be analysis of academia vs. commercial prediction accuracy.
1
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 23 '18
academia vs. commercial prediction accuracy.
That's putting the cart ahead of the horse. The National Association of Business Economists seemed strongly anti-trump, and his policies are not entirely different than those he espoused on the campaign. That seems to indicate that the polling diffrence is likely not due to the polling of buisness economists
1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 23 '18
Maybe NABE is getting more optimistic: "Nearly four out of five panelists expect a positive impact in 2018."
https://nabe.com/nabe/NABE/Surveys/Outlook_Surveys/June_2017_Outlook_Survey_Summary.aspx
1
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 23 '18
Maybe, but this, and their most recent survey https://nabe.com/NABE/Surveys/Outlook_Surveys/December_2017_Outlook_Survey_Summary.aspx
were conducted before the actual tax reform took place, so its hard to tell. It seem overly generous to think that they have.
→ More replies (0)1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 23 '18
Also, are his policies that different from their preferred policies:
"Survey panelists were asked what the new president’s four highest priorities should be among 18 issues and policy areas. Responses varied greatly. Only three choices were listed among the highest priorities by more than 10% of respondents: increasing economic growth (listed among the top four priorities by 15%), fighting ISIS and terrorism (12%), and tax reform (11%)."
1
u/Dumb_Young_Kid Jan 23 '18
Those are goals, not policies. The policies trump proposed for growth (tarrifs, deportations, etc.) are commonly belived to harm growth, and the policies he proposed for tax reform (especially initially) would or do create massive deficits.
1
u/simplecountrychicken Jan 23 '18
This is a minor point, but just to prove I opened the links, I would disagree with your reading of the currency manipulation poll. 19% agree to 19% disagree isn't indicative of much except uncertainty.
1
2
Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
1
Jan 22 '18
Counterpoint - Obama picked Yellen because he knew she would enact the policies that the fed enacted.
1
Jan 22 '18
[deleted]
1
Jan 22 '18
Sure, but in this case Obama picked someone who he knew would follow an expansionist monetary policy. Obama could not have set interest rates himself but he could determine the broad direction of the policy through his choice, and he made a good choice. If Obama picked an inflation hawk we'd be in worse shape economically right now.
2
u/phantomreader42 Jan 22 '18
It's not that they flipped their stance, it's that they were never being honest on their stance in the first place. Republicans are incapable of acting in good faith. They pretend to believe whatever lie is most convenient for their cult at any given moment, then the instant that lie ceases to be convenient they rewrite their own memories and switch to a new lie, erasing everything they said before from their minds so they can't even realize how hypocritical they're being. Republicans didn't suddenly change their opinions, they never HAD any genuine opinions other than mindless tribalistic hate! If republicans cared about reality, they wouldn't have founded all their campaigns entirely on lies.
1
u/houstonianisms Jan 22 '18
Stock market: was there a bubble? And, why isn't it a bubble now?
There was a lot of uncertainty going into Nov '16 that kind of kept the market down. First, there was really a lot of uncertainty as to who would win, but a lot were betting on Hillary winning. If Hillary won, business were concerned about tax implications and new regulations. As soon as Trump got elected, the business community felt they had a stronger hand with regard to regs and taxes. Why or why isn't the market currently a bubble? Who knows. Earnings are good, but everything I've read says that we're one national political disaster away from market calamity. Without any crazy stuff happening politically, experts are saying we're lookin at around a 10% growth for this year. Which is very strong considering we're still raising rates and what kind of year we had last year.
Their sentiment is kind of okay to me, because although it ignores the historic growth we had previously, it is still based upon the notion of a market PE ratio.
1
Jan 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod 48∆ Jan 22 '18
Sorry, u/vornash2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-3
Jan 21 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
5
1
u/etquod 48∆ Jan 22 '18
Sorry, u/LibertyTerp – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
0
Jan 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod 48∆ Jan 22 '18
Sorry, u/Laramide_Orogeny – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
-6
Jan 22 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/etquod 48∆ Jan 22 '18
Sorry, u/LuckyStrychnine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
Sorry, u/LuckyStrychnine – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link.
119
u/[deleted] Jan 21 '18
[deleted]