🇳🇱
@sillystring@infosec.exchange
> I mean look at the turn over. As a business person he is terrible.
I never said he was a good businessman or even a good president. He was horrible at both, Biden just happens to be far worse.
With that said he had a signficantly better impact on both the stock exchange and the unemployment rate than Biden's run as Vice President, right up until the coronavirus. But it would be foolish to compare a complete economic shutdown under Trump to any other period in time, the fallout from that is inevitable. Even so aside from doing much better than Biden pre-coronavirus his unemployment rate recovery after the bulk of the epidemic was at a higher rate than we have ever seen from any other economic crash in history.
Trump literally hit two records as president that havent been matched in the lifetime of anyone living: 1) he managed to get the unemployment rate to the lowest it has been in living history 2) he managed to see the fastest recovery of unemployment following an economic crash of any incident in history.
While I wouldnt say these two facts make him a good president, credit where credit is due, and there isnt much Biden has ever accomplished worthy of any praise, and a **lot** he has done horrifically wrong.
> Biden is superior by merely not instigating mayhem.
I wouldnt say that describes him or the democrats any more or less than Trump.
We certainly had some isolated cases of violence at teh capital, and that isn't acceptable, but trump was one of the very first people to get on the TV and tell them that violence was unacceptable.
Meanwhile I spent the bulk of the year watching democrat protests burn down buildings and cop cars in my city tot he point that the sky was black with smoke. I didnt see biden decrying those incidents or calling out the violence at all.
@freemo @sillystring @SmilingTexan
I call bullshit on that; Trump was riding the economic wave the presidency before him created. The plain proof IQ45 didn’t know shit about macro economics is the fact that he regularly compared economic growth with the situation on Wall St.
while I dont think Trump was particularly smart or know anything about macroeconomics the plain fact is, he was successful in that regard and the data shows it.
The data also doesnt agree with the notion that he was riding the wave of the previous president. Unemployment improvements follow logarithmic scales naturally, not linear ones. This should be obvious, of course, if you have a population of a 1,000,000 with 100% unemployed then an improvement if 1%, that is getting 10,000 people emoployed is easy, your just employing the top 1% most skilled people in the whole country and the top 1% most eager to work. However if you have a country of 1,000,000 and only 10,000 are unemployed and they are the last 10K in the whole country then getting that same 1% improvement is significantly more difficult and represents a near impossible effort as now you are trying to get the 1% least skilled and least willing to work employed.
We can easily confirm this to be true... on a few points. Simply look at their track record (and make sure you do it on a log-scale or else its useless)...
1) Trumps improvement represented an acceleration over obamas, not a continuation.
2) Obama had mixed results to say the least, with the unemployment rate increasing by 2% during his term, and falling by a new of only 3% following that.
3) Obamas minimum unemployment rate achieved was also unimpressive historically 10 times over the past 70 years other administrations have been able to get unemployment rates lower than that of Obama, even Bush his predecessor managed to have a lower unemployment rate than Obama
4) Trumps minimum unemployment rate, however, was record setting. 1953 (67 years ago) was the last time any administration was able to get an unemployment rate as low as Trumps
Look Trump sucked, a lot, and yes his low IQ made him an idiot, but it serves no purpose to distort the truth or ignore the **very few** things he did. the unemployment rate he achieved was impressive and the data backs that up, and the excuse that it was somehow magically Obamas fault, even though it was achieved over 3 years **after** Obama just makes your arguments and personal bias appear unsound.
I will be the first to agree Trump was a horrific president, but I also wont make up imaginary ways in which he sucked more than he did just because I cant admit that a broken clock is right twice a day.
@freemo @srwennekes @sillystring I've seen numerous people talk about his supposed low IQ, most talk about how he actually was appealing to the "lowest common denominator" of the country, choosing to use the simpler words so that those with a fifth grade education could understand him. That takes knowledge and wisdom to successfully pull off.
No sorry but that excuse is nonsense.
1) Trump's family has been over my family home for dinner on a few occasions (as has Biden). I assure you both he and his family are just as mentally deficient as they appear, it is not a tactic to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
2) You can simply watch any of the examples of him speaking to a limited audience of higher intelligence where there would be no need to dumb down his language or ideas and even in those settings he appears just as mentally challenged.
The sad fact is, he is just as stupid as he looks. There is no genius hiding underneath where its all an act that plays in his favor. He is just a plain old dumb human being, like so many other people out there.
@freemo @srwennekes @sillystring The difference of course is that someone paid him a helluva lot of money for "being dumb" as you say. I wish I could get someone to pay me 1/4 of what he got. So, he's at least smart enough to game the system.
Yes and no, people paid him money mostly because of a combination between being rich, and being famous, neither of which is the result of any intellgence on his part.
1) Him being rich is mostly due to his dad's credit and initial seed money. If you look at the money he was given that he didnt earn, and his ROI on that through the years he actually did a rather poor job as a business man. He would have made more money just putting money into the S&P 500 index and doing nothing then he ever made himself. In other words, old people in nursing homes living off their 401K managed to be better business men then he ever was (saw a bigger return on their investment). Unfortunately they just started with less.
2) Him being famous certainly made him money. But then again there are a lot of rich stupid people who got that way by being famous. I suppose you could wish to be a Kardashian too by that logic.
so yea, none of that is remotely an indication that he is smart and we have more than enough counter examples to show it. It means he had a rich daddy and people found it comical to watch how stupid he behaves on tv, thats about it.
@freemo @srwennekes @sillystring The kind of intelligence that you are speaking of is highly subjective. I think that is where our disagreement is.
On an entirely unrelated subject, since I haven't been on here long, I have to say this debate we have had has been much more civil than any I've had (or tried to have) on Twitter or Facebook.
@freemo Since you mentioned STEM, I don't actually like that term because it kind of leaves out the need for Art, I like to refer to it as STEAM, because without art, the rest is meaningless. IMHO.
@SmilingTexan
QOTO (though not always the greater fediverse) thrives on difference of opinion and mature discussion. It is pretty much what we are all about. We try to welcome people from all ends of the spectrum (short of literal nazis or racists, and no being a trump supporter doesnt put you in that category) and encourage respectful discussions in the hopes that everyone can come away with a better perspective of the other side and in some cases even change some minds.
Afterall that is what STEM is all about, exploring ideas in earnest and charitably.
@srwennekes @sillystring