For those of you who think MAGA Trump supporters are in a cult

[Colonel Sanders]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

Are you getting a hint of why we object to The Felon?

And note that things are playing out pretty much as we expected. Doesn't that suggest that the rest of what we've predicted is also likely to be right?

But Trump (for all his many faults) has also proven the left were and are still horribly wrong. On the most important things that count:

1). Globalism - the elite scam intended to drive down middle class wages causing higher inequality with them and everyone else. It took Trump to finally bring down this false narrative.
2). The economic Forum was "just a committee" and did not mean anything. It took Trump to bring down their false narrative as well.
3). That huge numbers of low educated immigration were desperately needed and would not affect the quality of middle class wages. Same as above.
4). That tariffs can not work and will kill the economy. Despite the economic tariff hating experts the stock market is at record highs right now. And a very good chance the US may yet re-industrialize. It is still early to tell on this however.
5). That all types of religion are harmful.. That social religious institutions needed by the poor were no longer needed by elite That de-population is good.
6). That all main stream media can always be trusted to tell the truth.

Trump won't be president much longer anyway but I still continue to believe (even with his serious flaws) he was well worth it for the US. Our chance of survival is much higher today than it would have been otherwise. When it comes to income disparity and strength of the middle class, the red states are faring much better than the blue ones right now. Especially for the young adults trying to start families.

I thought that this was a rather well done satire of a one-eyed Trumpist's absurd take.

Then I saw who posted it, and now I am not sure that the laughable absurdity and contradiction of reality it depicts was, in fact, intended as humour.

Were I not sick and in bed for the third goddamn week in a fucking row, it would be fun to do a point by point refutation. So please, someone else do the work for me (and everyone else).

Okay: "Re-industrialization"??? I vote for Re-Santa Clausization so that impoverished children can get Next Gen gaming consoles.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

Are you getting a hint of why we object to The Felon?

And note that things are playing out pretty much as we expected. Doesn't that suggest that the rest of what we've predicted is also likely to be right?

But Trump (for all his many faults) has also proven the left were and are still horribly wrong. On the most important things that count:

1). Globalism - the elite scam intended to drive down middle class wages causing higher inequality with them and everyone else. It took Trump to finally bring down this false narrative.
2). The economic Forum was "just a committee" and did not mean anything. It took Trump to bring down their false narrative as well.
3). That huge numbers of low educated immigration were desperately needed and would not affect the quality of middle class wages. Same as above.
4). That tariffs can not work and will kill the economy. Despite the economic tariff hating experts the stock market is at record highs right now. And a very good chance the US may yet re-industrialize. It is still early to tell on this however.
5). That all types of religion are harmful.. That social religious institutions needed by the poor were no longer needed by elite That de-population is good.
6). That all main stream media can always be trusted to tell the truth.

Trump won't be president much longer anyway but I still continue to believe (even with his serious flaws) he was well worth it for the US. Our chance of survival is much higher today than it would have been otherwise. When it comes to income disparity and strength of the middle class, the red states are faring much better than the blue ones right now. Especially for the young adults trying to start families.

Oh sure the "left" believe that (per #6) all mainstream media can be trusted. LOL
RE: #4 - the stock market relates to financial matters, not the real economy. Trump's tariffs have no positive effect; it is a tax on everyone in USA. The claim that it will make people turn to buying locally produced products, when such manufacturing ability for those particular products does not exist in USA is ridiculous, and such capability can not appear over night but takes years and huge investment to occur.
Your other points are either equally wrong or too simplified to be correct. For instance you say de-population is bad, and yet support getting rid of illegal (and also many not illegal) people, which guess what causes de-population.

 

[ZiprHead]

and such capability can not appear over night but takes years and huge investment to occur.

Which will not occur while Trump can change economic conditions at will depending on who kisses his ass the deepest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But even worse than RVonse not even reading the news article he cites is Loren not reading Swammi's post #151 !
Here, Loren. I'll give you another chance to correct your opinion of the Aljaeera story you are wrongly condemning:

Why should I change my opinion?

I would assume that their statement is true but that is completely irrelevant since "X said Y" is not remotely proof that Y is true, and is a standard tactic to deceive readers into thinking Y is true while maintaining supposed impartiality.

So: RVonse pretends to use Al Jazeera as a source, and misrepresents the content 100%. Now, rather than reading the Al Jazeera article -- or even reading the very brief excerpt I provided from that article -- you use RVonse's total misrepresentation to help confirm your bias against a website (as graded by  Ad Fontes Media) roughly as reliable as CNN: The Situation Room, slightly more reliable than Newsweek, and WAY ahead of CBS: 60 Minutes in reliability.

Got it.

I looked at the article. It's an X says Y. I don't trust X, thus why should I believe Y?

 

[Swammerdami]

But even worse than RVonse not even reading the news article he cites is Loren not reading Swammi's post #151 !
Here, Loren. I'll give you another chance to correct your opinion of the Aljaeera story you are wrongly condemning:

Why should I change my opinion?

I would assume that their statement is true but that is completely irrelevant since "X said Y" is not remotely proof that Y is true, and is a standard tactic to deceive readers into thinking Y is true while maintaining supposed impartiality.

So: RVonse pretends to use Al Jazeera as a source, and misrepresents the content 100%. Now, rather than reading the Al Jazeera article -- or even reading the very brief excerpt I provided from that article -- you use RVonse's total misrepresentation to help confirm your bias against a website (as graded by  Ad Fontes Media) roughly as reliable as CNN: The Situation Room, slightly more reliable than Newsweek, and WAY ahead of CBS: 60 Minutes in reliability.

Got it.

I looked at the article. It's an X says Y. I don't trust X, thus why should I believe Y?

Who is X and what is Y in this reduction?
Have I menioned that I'm often confused by your posts? A central theme in this subthread was that you don't trust Al Jazeera, but that is irrelevant to the rest of the discussion and hence just confuses. Or is X = Al Jazeera in your summary? It really is hard to follow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But Trump (for all his many faults) has also proven the left were and are still horribly wrong. On the most important things that count:

Proved the left wrong???

1). Globalism - the elite scam intended to drive down middle class wages causing higher inequality with them and everyone else. It took Trump to finally bring down this false narrative.

And how has he remotely proven this??

2). The economic Forum was "just a committee" and did not mean anything. It took Trump to bring down their false narrative as well.

Huh?

3). That huge numbers of low educated immigration were desperately needed and would not affect the quality of middle class wages. Same as above.

We are only starting to see the damage.

4). That tariffs can not work and will kill the economy. Despite the economic tariff hating experts the stock market is at record highs right now. And a very good chance the US may yet re-industrialize. It is still early to tell on this however.

He's so all over the place on tariffs that we have no idea what the effect will be.

But note that we have seen no attempts to produce things here. We have seen Apple buy him off with a gold statue.

5). That all types of religion are harmful.. That social religious institutions needed by the poor were no longer needed by elite That de-population is good.

???

6). That all main stream media can always be trusted to tell the truth.

Trump won't be president much longer anyway but I still continue to believe (even with his serious flaws) he was well worth it for the US. Our chance of survival is much higher today than it would have been otherwise. When it comes to income disparity and strength of the middle class, the red states are faring much better than the blue ones right now. Especially for the young adults trying to start families.

All media is questionable. But the mainstream stuff is far better than the reich wing stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

After reading more sources about Dr. McEntarfer it appears I was hasty in my opinion and should reconsider my original position about Trump's firing.

Her firing does appear to actually have merit when everything is taken into consideration. Not because of the failing final stats but because her original numbers were put out too optimistically without any explanation that they might be so inaccurate. Since her job is to inform the public accurately she very much failed to inform the public in a professional manner.

Or maybe the correction is removing an orange thumb from the scale.

 

[ZiprHead]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

You concede that the firing was wrong. Then, with the sentence I've purpled you show utter miscomprehension of stats reporting and the value of CONSISTENCY.

Still the fact you found Trump wrong was encouraging ... UNTIL [paraphrasing]:
"Same-same; the Demon-crats did it first and probably worst."

Metaphor and some of the hardest-core Hardcorians have left us. But I hope you stick around, RVonse. In their own special way your opinions are truly astonishing.

After reading more sources about Dr. McEntarfer it appears I was hasty in my opinion and should reconsider my original position about Trump's firing.

Her firing does appear to actually have merit when everything is taken into consideration. Not because of the failing final stats but because her original numbers were put out too optimistically without any explanation that they might be so inaccurate. Since her job is to inform the public accurately she very much failed to inform the public in a professional manner.

Do you understand why numbers have to be updated after the fact? Employees fired just before the end of the month often don't get counted until the next month. Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

That Trump fired her because of feelings. He's a moron.

 

[TomC]

Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

And a convenient side effect that I can't help pointing out,
The enormous numbers of people including media and officialdom, talking about the idiocy of firing the messenger instead of screaming about the economic disaster created by the Trump administration policies.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But even worse than RVonse not even reading the news article he cites is Loren not reading Swammi's post #151 !
Here, Loren. I'll give you another chance to correct your opinion of the Aljaeera story you are wrongly condemning:

Why should I change my opinion?

I would assume that their statement is true but that is completely irrelevant since "X said Y" is not remotely proof that Y is true, and is a standard tactic to deceive readers into thinking Y is true while maintaining supposed impartiality.

So: RVonse pretends to use Al Jazeera as a source, and misrepresents the content 100%. Now, rather than reading the Al Jazeera article -- or even reading the very brief excerpt I provided from that article -- you use RVonse's total misrepresentation to help confirm your bias against a website (as graded by  Ad Fontes Media) roughly as reliable as CNN: The Situation Room, slightly more reliable than Newsweek, and WAY ahead of CBS: 60 Minutes in reliability.

Got it.

I looked at the article. It's an X says Y. I don't trust X, thus why should I believe Y?

Who is X and what is Y in this reduction?
Have I menioned that I'm often confused by your posts? A central theme in this subthread was that you don't trust Al Jazeera, but that is irrelevant to the rest of the discussion and hence just confuses. Or is X = Al Jazeera in your summary? It really is hard to follow.

Al Jazeera reported that one of The Felon's incompetent appointments said something. In this case, "accurate" but not remotely evidence that they spoke the truth.

 

[ZiprHead]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

You concede that the firing was wrong. Then, with the sentence I've purpled you show utter miscomprehension of stats reporting and the value of CONSISTENCY.

Still the fact you found Trump wrong was encouraging ... UNTIL [paraphrasing]:
"Same-same; the Demon-crats did it first and probably worst."

Metaphor and some of the hardest-core Hardcorians have left us. But I hope you stick around, RVonse. In their own special way your opinions are truly astonishing.

After reading more sources about Dr. McEntarfer it appears I was hasty in my opinion and should reconsider my original position about Trump's firing.

Her firing does appear to actually have merit when everything is taken into consideration. Not because of the failing final stats but because her original numbers were put out too optimistically without any explanation that they might be so inaccurate. Since her job is to inform the public accurately she very much failed to inform the public in a professional manner.

Do you understand why numbers have to be updated after the fact? Employees fired just before the end of the month often don't get counted until the next month. Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

That Trump fired her because of feelings. He's a moron.

I forgot to mention the same thing happened to Biden in August before the election. It cost him several percentage points.

Trump lied about it and said the adjustments came after the election.

 

[Swammerdami]

Al Jazeera reported that one of The Felon's incompetent appointments said something. In this case, "accurate" but not remotely evidence that they spoke the truth.

Just to bring closure to this sub-subthread, let me summarize it:

• Al Jazeera reported, correctly, that Tulsi Gabbard made some claims.
• Al Jazeera reported, correctly, that Tulsi Gabbard's claims were probably false.
• The topic of this sub-subthread is: Is Al Jazeera's English-language website a reliable source (when they are NOT discussing Israel)?

It's hard to be sure but I think Loren is conceding that Al Jazeera is relatively reliable.

 

[Toni]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

Are you getting a hint of why we object to The Felon?

And note that things are playing out pretty much as we expected. Doesn't that suggest that the rest of what we've predicted is also likely to be right?

But Trump (for all his many faults) has also proven the left were and are still horribly wrong. On the most important things that count:

1). Globalism - the elite scam intended to drive down middle class wages causing higher inequality with them and everyone else. It took Trump to finally bring down this false narrative.
2). The economic Forum was "just a committee" and did not mean anything. It took Trump to bring down their false narrative as well.
3). That huge numbers of low educated immigration were desperately needed and would not affect the quality of middle class wages. Same as above.
4). That tariffs can not work and will kill the economy. Despite the economic tariff hating experts the stock market is at record highs right now. And a very good chance the US may yet re-industrialize. It is still early to tell on this however.
5). That all types of religion are harmful.. That social religious institutions needed by the poor were no longer needed by elite That de-population is good.
6). That all main stream media can always be trusted to tell the truth.

Trump won't be president much longer anyway but I still continue to believe (even with his serious flaws) he was well worth it for the US. Our chance of survival is much higher today than it would have been otherwise. When it comes to income disparity and strength of the middle class, the red states are faring much better than the blue ones right now. Especially for the young adults trying to start families.

I thought that this was a rather well done satire of a one-eyed Trumpist's absurd take.

Then I saw who posted it, and now I am not sure that the laughable absurdity and contradiction of reality it depicts was, in fact, intended as humour.

Were I not sick and in bed for the third goddamn week in a fucking row, it would be fun to do a point by point refutation. So please, someone else do the work for me (and everyone else).

Okay: "Re-industrialization"??? I vote for Re-Santa Clausization so that impoverished children can get Next Gen gaming consoles.

I hope you recover soon and are back to your own self.

 

[Toni]

As for firing of Dr. McEntarfer I think Trump was an absolute moron for doing this. If anything the problem has been early reporting being too optimistic before all the facts come in. Trump has just formally told the world that US government stats can not be trusted at all in the future. He has told the world that politics takes priority over telling the truth...not that I ever believed reports given from any administration anyway.

Are you getting a hint of why we object to The Felon?

And note that things are playing out pretty much as we expected. Doesn't that suggest that the rest of what we've predicted is also likely to be right?

But Trump (for all his many faults) has also proven the left were and are still horribly wrong. On the most important things that count:

1). Globalism - the elite scam intended to drive down middle class wages causing higher inequality with them and everyone else. It took Trump to finally bring down this false narrative.
2). The economic Forum was "just a committee" and did not mean anything. It took Trump to bring down their false narrative as well.
3). That huge numbers of low educated immigration were desperately needed and would not affect the quality of middle class wages. Same as above.
4). That tariffs can not work and will kill the economy. Despite the economic tariff hating experts the stock market is at record highs right now. And a very good chance the US may yet re-industrialize. It is still early to tell on this however.
5). That all types of religion are harmful.. That social religious institutions needed by the poor were no longer needed by elite That de-population is good.
6). That all main stream media can always be trusted to tell the truth.

Trump won't be president much longer anyway but I still continue to believe (even with his serious flaws) he was well worth it for the US. Our chance of survival is much higher today than it would have been otherwise. When it comes to income disparity and strength of the middle class, the red states are faring much better than the blue ones right now. Especially for the young adults trying to start families.

Tell me that you are in a cult without saying that you are in a cult.

 

[Swammerdami]

You concede that the firing was wrong. Then, with the sentence I've purpled you show utter miscomprehension of stats reporting and the value of CONSISTENCY....

Her firing does appear to actually have merit when everything is taken into consideration. Not because of the failing final stats but because her original numbers were put out too optimistically without any explanation that they might be so inaccurate....

All initial estimates end up inaccurate because the agency doesn’t have all the information. That is true for all gov’t statistics. Holding someone accountable for the inevitable is both unfair and stupid.

I alluded to this by mentioning CONSISTENCY. The BLS produced its numbers in the SAME way for Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden. People USE the numbers for various purposes and are happy that the numbers are produced in a constant fashion.

But apparently @RVonse (& Trump) think that when Trump is in the pooh-bah chair, entirely different procedures should apply.

 

[RVonse]

Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

And a convenient side effect that I can't help pointing out,
The enormous numbers of people including media and officialdom, talking about the idiocy of firing the messenger instead of screaming about the economic disaster created by the Trump administration policies.
Tom

That is a good point. Was she really "just the messenger". Because if she was "just the messenger" my next question is her salary for just "being the messenger". Because I would expect "the messenger" of a routine collection of stats to be a clerical secretary job. Collection of stats exactly the same way it has for eons in the past for minimum wages. A chimpanzee could collect this data and pass it to the public.

But if her job requires skills more than minimum wage, should the taxpaying public not expect this professional position to be more like the financial manager. The professional who not only reports the immediate net worth today but offering the client an intelligent probability of the financial calamity we might experience tomorrow?

I suspect her compensation was something much greater than minimum wage. A lot more than minimum wage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if her compensation to be greater than the average wage of the US tax payer.

 

[laughing dog]

Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

And a convenient side effect that I can't help pointing out,
The enormous numbers of people including media and officialdom, talking about the idiocy of firing the messenger instead of screaming about the economic disaster created by the Trump administration policies.
Tom

That is a good point. Was she really "just the messenger". Because if she was "just the messenger" my next question is her salary for just "being the messenger". Because I would expect "the messenger" of a routine collection of stats to be a clerical secretary job. Collection of stats exactly the same way it has for eons in the past for minimum wages. A chimpanzee could collect this data and pass it to the public.

Just chimps that could do auto assembly line jobs?

She was the “messenger” for the entire staff of the BLS. Firing people for bringing unwelcome news is the hallmark of a petulant tyrant who only tolerates sycophants. It is a harbinger of a poor decision-making.

Defending such cult leaders is a hallmark of cult membets:

 

[Swammerdami]

You concede that the firing was wrong. Then, with the sentence I've purpled you show utter miscomprehension of stats reporting and the value of CONSISTENCY.

Still the fact you found Trump wrong was encouraging ... UNTIL [paraphrasing]:
"Same-same; the Demon-crats did it first and probably worst."

Hunh? For over a century BLS has been releasing its numbers in the same boring way: FACTS; let politicians and snake-oil salesmen provide any "spin." But with the Magnificent Orange Pooh-bah in charge, we suddenly need coddling.

If these numbers look too good to be true, you have the Greatest President ever to thank for that. Hallelujah! May He reign for another hundred years!!

But if we need to revise these numbers down, it will be due to sabotage by Biden and the Deep State. Lock 'em up.

After reading more sources about Dr. McEntarfer it appears I was hasty in my opinion and should reconsider my original position about Trump's firing.

Her firing does appear to actually have merit when everything is taken into consideration. Not because of the failing final stats but because her original numbers were put out too optimistically without any explanation that they might be so inaccurate. Since her job is to inform the public accurately she very much failed to inform the public in a professional manner.

So, BLS_Numbergate isn't going away. Facts may not help the MAGA crowd, but here's a YouTube that interviews previous heads of BLS, and explains BLS numbers, and how and why they get revised. It comes from a Channel named "The Wall Street Journal." Once right-of-center and publishers of one of the best newspapers in the world, is WSJ now deviating from QAnon wisdom and embracing Soros' sex-trafficking Marxo-terrorism?



(The video never once mentions the insidious connections among BLS_Numbergate, Hillary_SexTraffickerGate, and Biden stealing the 2020 election-Gate, so may not be appreciated by the Trump-Worshiping Cult.)

 

[Swammerdami]

Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

And a convenient side effect that I can't help pointing out,
The enormous numbers of people including media and officialdom, talking about the idiocy of firing the messenger instead of screaming about the economic disaster created by the Trump administration policies.
Tom

That is a good point. Was she really "just the messenger". Because if she was "just the messenger" my next question is her salary for just "being the messenger". Because I would expect "the messenger" of a routine collection of stats to be a clerical secretary job. Collection of stats exactly the same way it has for eons in the past for minimum wages. A chimpanzee could collect this data and pass it to the public.

But if her job requires skills more than minimum wage, should the taxpaying public not expect this professional position to be more like the financial manager. The professional who not only reports the immediate net worth today but offering the client an intelligent probability of the financial calamity we might experience tomorrow?

I suspect her compensation was something much greater than minimum wage. A lot more than minimum wage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if her compensation to be greater than the average wage of the US tax payer.

Oh my. First Dr. McEntarfer is a Deep State agent, revising numbers in an attempt to bring down Trump's Utopia! Now she's a chimpanzee counting on her fingers. Whatever we do, let's not admit what she really was: A dedicated public servant who supervised over 2000 employees, probably for a salary muh less than she could have gotten in private industry. Many or most government employees take pride in their work, and prefer public service to rhe Dog-eat-dog mentality of post-rational Amerika's hyper-capitalism.

The more we listen to @RVonse -- admitting the truths we force-feed him but then weaving to an opposite spin, all in the service of the Cult of Trumpism -- the more pessimistic I get about MAGGOTs regaining their sanity. And it isn't even just incorrigible oldies: A majority of young white men (especially those without college education of course) are also in the Cult.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Some reporting agencies can be a little slow on occasion due to high amounts of activity, such as the two months Trump questioned. It's hard to fudge the numbers. The statistical procedure is quite standardized.

And a convenient side effect that I can't help pointing out,
The enormous numbers of people including media and officialdom, talking about the idiocy of firing the messenger instead of screaming about the economic disaster created by the Trump administration policies.
Tom

That is a good point. Was she really "just the messenger". Because if she was "just the messenger" my next question is her salary for just "being the messenger". Because I would expect "the messenger" of a routine collection of stats to be a clerical secretary job. Collection of stats exactly the same way it has for eons in the past for minimum wages. A chimpanzee could collect this data and pass it to the public.

But if her job requires skills more than minimum wage, should the taxpaying public not expect this professional position to be more like the financial manager. The professional who not only reports the immediate net worth today but offering the client an intelligent probability of the financial calamity we might experience tomorrow?

I suspect her compensation was something much greater than minimum wage. A lot more than minimum wage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if her compensation to be greater than the average wage of the US tax payer.

The collection and correlation of the data would require a large quantity of staff (the post immediately above by Swammerdami mentions over 2,000), so she is in a very senior management position, which has lots of responsibility.