3 ms·
Not saying it's true but an argument can be made (and I assume this is the one he's thinking) that growth was higher with his winning the election because the m
by jnordwick 10y ago
Not saying it's true but an argument can be made (and I assume this is the one he's thinking) that growth was higher with his winning the election because the market is anticipating his policies. It is perfectly reasonable and a matter of opinion. You simply cannot write it off as factually incorrect.
- pharrington 10y agoTo clarify, the national debt is the money the federal government owes varies entities. It has nothing to do with the market.
- danjoc 10y ago>national debt >nothing to do with the market You're not familiar with the Treasury Bond market, are you?
- pharrington 10y agoMaybe I mistakenly assumed the poster wasn't referring to that one specific thing.
- jnordwick 10y agoVarious monies come into the federal government continuously, such as taxes, fees, tariffs, bonds, etc.
- empressplay 10y agoBut if you read the actual tweet he simply says debt when down in his first month vs. up in Obama's. Which is true. He doesn't say it was because of his policies. Politifact just found a way to try to spin it (which is what it is) as "false" so they could add it to the "Trump's a compulsive liar" column. To paraphrase someone else: I didn't leave the liberals, the liberals left me.
- pimlottc 10y agoIt's true that Trump didn't claim it was a result of his actions or policies (enacted or planned), but that is clearly the intended unstated message. Otherwise, why did he tweet it?
- coldtea 10y agoFor the reasons stated IN the tweet? To show how the media didn't report it because it could be conceived as something good that happened under his first month?
- intended 10y agoI would say that you will return to the fold soon enough. Firstly, no political speech is made for its truth value. Let us disabuse everyone of this notion. 1) all human beings have a very limited attention short term span which has to be managed and husbanded. 2) full technically and practically faithful statements of a problem easily crush those human neural limits. 3) emotional messaging subverts all rational checks and balances, and has a disproportion impact on the brain, and such messaging can be made to scale. Given the 3 points above, without a constant third party or legal intervention to prevent abuse, political messaging will always devolve into emotional button pushing. The people who deal in politics will be so far removed in skill and native talent in this field, that it would be like comparing a newbie high school graduate vs someone who writes and optimizes game engine code. Simply put, most communication by politicians will be designed to take these considerations,at the minimum, into mind. these are the functional limits of the world we live in.