The Official "Making America Great Again" Thread

[93henfan]

"]

No idea. Don't really care. I did hear that Marine One was grounded due to weather and the SS wasn't keen on putting together an impromptu 100 mile motorcade in a country full of Islamic fundamentalists and people who generally dislike Trump and the US.

Its more like 60 miles. And if it’s the same main road I drove from Lille to Paris then it’s Wide open spaces. And I stopped by Bellau Wood.


My cousin, a Trump supporter and former loggie with HMX-1 posted that excuse was bullshit. Hueys- they can take gun fire but not rain. Lol. Trumps a pussy. Plain and simple. He’s soft.


To be honest- the military makes the decision to scrap the mission. But there’s no backup plan? And then to not address it? Seems like a waste of 44 hours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a few things:
1. It's 55 miles each way. 110 mile motorcade if that was the backup. The log trail on a 110 mile motorcade would be INSANE.
2. HMX-1 doesn't use Hueys for POTUS, but that's immaterial. They use Sea Kings and White Hawks for the white tops, and any of them can handle mild weather with no problem.
3. The military doesn't make the decision to scrap the mission. The SS does.
4. There is always a backup plan. Always.
5. Regardless of how soft Trump may be, this had nothing to do with weather. He was flipping the bird at Merkel, and to a lesser extent Frenchy east and Frenchy west.
6. Deal with it. lol

[JohnStOnge]

"]Trumps a pussy.

I think he IS a pussy. I think if you put him in a situation where he is actually at risk he'd shit his pants in a heartbeat. But I think he is even more so a prick. And that's why he didn't take the trip.

[Skjellyfetti]

Just a few things:
1. It's 55 miles each way. 110 mile motorcade if that was the backup. The log trail on a 110 mile motorcade would be INSANE.
2. HMX-1 doesn't use Hueys for POTUS, but that's immaterial. They use Sea Kings and White Hawks for the white tops, and any of them can handle mild weather with no problem.
3. The military doesn't make the decision to scrap the mission. The SS does.
4. There is always a backup plan. Always.
5. Regardless of how soft Trump may be, this had nothing to do with weather. He was flipping the bird at Merkel, and to a lesser extent Frenchy east and Frenchy west.
6. Deal with it. lol

Those are pretty shitty excuses. I admire the effort, though.

You should just stick with #6.

[93henfan]

Just a few things:
1. It's 55 miles each way. 110 mile motorcade if that was the backup. The log trail on a 110 mile motorcade would be INSANE.
2. HMX-1 doesn't use Hueys for POTUS, but that's immaterial. They use Sea Kings and White Hawks for the white tops, and any of them can handle mild weather with no problem.
3. The military doesn't make the decision to scrap the mission. The SS does.
4. There is always a backup plan. Always.
5. Regardless of how soft Trump may be, this had nothing to do with weather. He was flipping the bird at Merkel, and to a lesser extent Frenchy east and Frenchy west.
6. Deal with it. lol

Those are pretty shitty excuses. I admire the effort, though.

You should just stick with #6.

Those are facts, not excuses.

[Ibanez]

"]
Its more like 60 miles. And if it’s the same main road I drove from Lille to Paris then it’s Wide open spaces. And I stopped by Bellau Wood.


My cousin, a Trump supporter and former loggie with HMX-1 posted that excuse was bullshit. Hueys- they can take gun fire but not rain. Lol. Trumps a pussy. Plain and simple. He’s soft.


To be honest- the military makes the decision to scrap the mission. But there’s no backup plan? And then to not address it? Seems like a waste of 44 hours.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a few things:
1. It's 55 miles each way. 110 mile motorcade if that was the backup. The log trail on a 110 mile motorcade would be INSANE.
2. HMX-1 doesn't use Hueys for POTUS, but that's immaterial. They use Sea Kings and White Hawks for the white tops, and any of them can handle mild weather with no problem.
3. The military doesn't make the decision to scrap the mission. The SS does.
4. There is always a backup plan. Always.
5. Regardless of how soft Trump may be, this had nothing to do with weather. He was flipping the bird at Merkel, and to a lesser extent Frenchy east and Frenchy west.
6. Deal with it. lol

I stated #3 but can concede 1-2, and admit I messed up the aircraft.

So he was being petulant for petulant sake. MAGA!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

Just a few things:
1. It's 55 miles each way. 110 mile motorcade if that was the backup. The log trail on a 110 mile motorcade would be INSANE.
2. HMX-1 doesn't use Hueys for POTUS, but that's immaterial. They use Sea Kings and White Hawks for the white tops, and any of them can handle mild weather with no problem.
3. The military doesn't make the decision to scrap the mission. The SS does.
4. There is always a backup plan. Always.
5. Regardless of how soft Trump may be, this had nothing to do with weather. He was flipping the bird at Merkel, and to a lesser extent Frenchy east and Frenchy west.
6. Deal with it. lol

I stated #3 but can concede 1-2, and admit I messed up the aircraft.

So he was being petulant for petulant sake. MAGA!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On #3, you said the military makes the decision to scrap the orders, which is incorrect. The SS scraps the orders. The military follows them.

And no doubt he was being petulant. I find it humorous. And I'm a veteran.

[CID1990]

I love these "President wasn't respectful/was too respectful debates

they remind me of our intelligent design threads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I stated #3 but can concede 1-2, and admit I messed up the aircraft.

So he was being petulant for petulant sake. MAGA!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On #3, you said the military makes the decision to scrap the orders, which is incorrect. The SS scraps the orders. The military follows them.

And no doubt he was being petulant. I find it humorous. And I'm a veteran.

Shut up and let me make baseless claims.



Jackass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[93henfan]

On #3, you said the military makes the decision to scrap the orders, which is incorrect. The SS scraps the orders. The military follows them.

And no doubt he was being petulant. I find it humorous. And I'm a veteran.

Shut up and let me make baseless claims.



Jackass


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry.

I'm soooorrrryyyyyyyy.

phpBB [video]

[JohnStOnge]

Good news and bad news for Trump in the latest Monmouth poll. The good news is that Monmouth's poll is rated A+ by 538 and it has Trump only 6 points under water in the Approve/Disapprove equation (43% approve, 49% disapprove). The bad news is the way in which respondents answered this question:

Looking ahead to the 2020 election for President, do you think that Donald Trump should
be re-elected, or do you think that it is time to have someone else in office?

59% said someone else should be in office while 36% said he should be re-elected. Among Independents it was 59% to 31%.

Other interesting stuff in the poll at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 11418.pdf/

[Ivytalk]

Good news and bad news for Trump in the latest Monmouth poll. The good news is that Monmouth's poll is rated A+ by 538 and it has Trump only 6 points under water in the Approve/Disapprove equation (43% approve, 49% disapprove). The bad news is the way in which respondents answered this question:

Looking ahead to the 2020 election for President, do you think that Donald Trump should
be re-elected, or do you think that it is time to have someone else in office?

59% said someone else should be in office while 36% said he should be re-elected. Among Independents it was 59% to 31%.

Other interesting stuff in the poll at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 11418.pdf/

John, tell us: what’s the last book you read? Polls don’t count.

[JohnStOnge]

So is the fact that the stock market is now down for the year due to Trump or are we going to say that when it did well in 2017 it was due to Trump but when it didn't do well in 2018 it was due to something else?

[JohnStOnge]

Good news and bad news for Trump in the latest Monmouth poll. The good news is that Monmouth's poll is rated A+ by 538 and it has Trump only 6 points under water in the Approve/Disapprove equation (43% approve, 49% disapprove). The bad news is the way in which respondents answered this question:



59% said someone else should be in office while 36% said he should be re-elected. Among Independents it was 59% to 31%.

Other interesting stuff in the poll at https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-instit ... 11418.pdf/

John, tell us: what’s the last book you read? Polls don’t count.

Calculus and its Applications, Brief Edition, by Larry J. Goldstein, David C. Lay, and David I. Schneider. 1980. I got it at one of those book sales where they sell old books for really cheap. It cost me 75 cents. But it's really good.

Honestly, though, if you want to ask me about my reading it'd be better to ask me about reading published scientific literature. I have to read that kind of stuff to do my job.

The sad thing is that just about every time I read a paper I shake my head about how poor the peer review process is as a quality control process. Just happened to me again last week. I asked for literature on a particular issue and was sent two published papers. Both of them were characterized by the same fallacy with respect to inferences that can be drawn through statistical hypothesis testing.

Yet both, of course, made it through the vaunted peer review process.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if you take the average daily percent increase of the stock market from it's bottom after the big crash on March 6, 2009 through election day, 2016, and assume that rate continued through the end of this year you'd estimate the Dow would be at 24,357.31 on December 31 of this year. It'll be interesting to see how far off we are from that when December 31 gets here.

[UNI88]

So is the fact that the stock market is now down for the year due to Trump or are we going to say that when it did well in 2017 it was due to Trump but when it didn't do well in 2018 it was due to something else?

Fair question and a nice short post. IMO he can't get credit for one without taking the blame for the other.

[AZGrizFan]

So is the fact that the stock market is now down for the year due to Trump or are we going to say that when it did well in 2017 it was due to Trump but when it didn't do well in 2018 it was due to something else?

Who’s this “we” shit? You got a turd in your pocket?

I think the tariffs are coming home to roost.

[AZGrizFan]

BTW, if you take the average daily percent increase of the stock market from it's bottom after the big crash on March 6, 2009 through election day, 2016, and assume that rate continued through the end of this year you'd estimate the Dow would be at 24,357.31 on December 31 of this year. It'll be interesting to see how far off we are from that when December 31 gets here.

Jesus H. Cherrypickin’ Christ. For a supposed “stats” guy you sure cherrypick like a motherfucker.

[Ivytalk]

John, tell us: what’s the last book you read? Polls don’t count.

Calculus and its Applications, Brief Edition, by Larry J. Goldstein, David C. Lay, and David I. Schneider. 1980. I got it at one of those book sales where they sell old books for really cheap. It cost me 75 cents. But it's really good.

Honestly, though, if you want to ask me about my reading it'd be better to ask me about reading published scientific literature. I have to read that kind of stuff to do my job.

The sad thing is that just about every time I read a paper I shake my head about how poor the peer review process is as a quality control process. Just happened to me again last week. I asked for literature on a particular issue and was sent two published papers. Both of them were characterized by the same fallacy with respect to inferences that can be drawn through statistical hypothesis testing.

Yet both, of course, made it through the vaunted peer review process.

I should have been more precise. What was the last book you read for pleasure? Same answer?

[kalm]

Calculus and its Applications, Brief Edition, by Larry J. Goldstein, David C. Lay, and David I. Schneider. 1980. I got it at one of those book sales where they sell old books for really cheap. It cost me 75 cents. But it's really good.

Honestly, though, if you want to ask me about my reading it'd be better to ask me about reading published scientific literature. I have to read that kind of stuff to do my job.

The sad thing is that just about every time I read a paper I shake my head about how poor the peer review process is as a quality control process. Just happened to me again last week. I asked for literature on a particular issue and was sent two published papers. Both of them were characterized by the same fallacy with respect to inferences that can be drawn through statistical hypothesis testing.

Yet both, of course, made it through the vaunted peer review process.

I should have been more precise. What was the last book you read for pleasure? Same answer?

[CAA Flagship]

Calculus and its Applications, Brief Edition, by Larry J. Goldstein, David C. Lay, and David I. Schneider. 1980. I got it at one of those book sales where they sell old books for really cheap. It cost me 75 cents. But it's really good.

Honestly, though, if you want to ask me about my reading it'd be better to ask me about reading published scientific literature. I have to read that kind of stuff to do my job.

The sad thing is that just about every time I read a paper I shake my head about how poor the peer review process is as a quality control process. Just happened to me again last week. I asked for literature on a particular issue and was sent two published papers. Both of them were characterized by the same fallacy with respect to inferences that can be drawn through statistical hypothesis testing.

Yet both, of course, made it through the vaunted peer review process.

I should have been more precise. What was the last book you read for pleasure? Same answer?

Partial Economics for Dumbasses

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, if you take the average daily percent increase of the stock market from it's bottom after the big crash on March 6, 2009 through election day, 2016, and assume that rate continued through the end of this year you'd estimate the Dow would be at 24,357.31 on December 31 of this year. It'll be interesting to see how far off we are from that when December 31 gets here.

Jesus H. Cherrypickin’ Christ. For a supposed “stats” guy you sure cherrypick like a motherfucker.

That's not cherry picking at all. If I wanted to cherry pick I'd look for some period starting with election day 2016 and moving backwards such that when one took the percent growth rate and projected forward the result would be getting an estimate higher than the current Dow is now.

All I'm doing is noting that we are now in a situation where the Dow is about where it would be if it had continued to grow at the same "average" percent growth rate it grew at from the start of the current bull market in 2009 through election day.

I refined it some. The other day I approximated by using numbers of days. Just now I did it with just trading days. If you take the "average" percent growth for trading days during the period starting with the start of the current bull market in 2009 through November 8, 2016 election day and use that to project what the Dow would be at as of the end of trading today if things continued as they were the estimate is 24,022.29. As I write this it's at 24,285.95.

I think there are 24 trading days left in the year after today. If you add that to the projection you get the estimate that the Dow would be at 24,326.42 at the end of 2018 if it had simply continued to progress at the "average" percent growth rate characterizing the current Bull market before Trump got elected.

There were ups and downs during the bull market prior to Trump's election and there have been ups and downs since Trump got elected. But overall we're about in the same place as we would've been had things simply continued as they were going. It is what it is. No cherry picking at all.

[AZGrizFan]

Jesus H. Cherrypickin’ Christ. For a supposed “stats” guy you sure cherrypick like a motherfucker.

That's not cherry picking at all. If I wanted to cherry pick I'd look for some period starting with election day 2016 and moving backwards such that when one took the percent growth rate and projected forward the result would be getting an estimate higher than the current Dow is now.

All I'm doing is noting that we are now in a situation where the Dow is about where it would be if it had continued to grow at the same "average" percent growth rate it grew at from the start of the current bull market in 2009 through election day.

I refined it some. The other day I approximated by using numbers of days. Just now I did it with just trading days. If you take the "average" percent growth for trading days during the period starting with the start of the current bull market in 2009 through November 8, 2016 election day and use that to project what the Dow would be at as of the end of trading today if things continued as they were the estimate is 24,022.29. As I write this it's at 24,285.95.

I think there are 24 trading days left in the year after today. If you add that to the projection you get the estimate that the Dow would be at 24,326.42 at the end of 2018 if it had simply continued to progress at the "average" percent growth rate characterizing the current Bull market before Trump got elected.

There were ups and downs during the bull market prior to Trump's election and there have been ups and downs since Trump got elected. But overall we're about in the same place as we would've been had things simply continued as they were going. It is what it is. No cherry picking at all.

Choosing the low point most certainly IS cherry picking. You’re not giving Obama “credit” for the collapse from HIS Election Day to the low point.

[JohnStOnge]

Jesus H. Cherrypickin’ Christ. For a supposed “stats” guy you sure cherrypick like a motherfucker.

Just to illustrate what I mentioned in my previous post:

I've said before that when I look at graphs if DJIA growth I'd say that after flattening out it started to rise again in early 2016. The actual date where that started is January 20, 2016.

If I take the "average" percent growth rate from January 20, 2016, through election day November 8, 2016 and use that to project/estimate what the DJIA would close at today the estimate is 26,755.94. Right now the DJIA is at 24,285.95. But I intentionally avoided doing that. To maintain objectivity, I used the rate characterizing the entire bull market period.

[houndawg]

That's not cherry picking at all. If I wanted to cherry pick I'd look for some period starting with election day 2016 and moving backwards such that when one took the percent growth rate and projected forward the result would be getting an estimate higher than the current Dow is now.

All I'm doing is noting that we are now in a situation where the Dow is about where it would be if it had continued to grow at the same "average" percent growth rate it grew at from the start of the current bull market in 2009 through election day.

I refined it some. The other day I approximated by using numbers of days. Just now I did it with just trading days. If you take the "average" percent growth for trading days during the period starting with the start of the current bull market in 2009 through November 8, 2016 election day and use that to project what the Dow would be at as of the end of trading today if things continued as they were the estimate is 24,022.29. As I write this it's at 24,285.95.

I think there are 24 trading days left in the year after today. If you add that to the projection you get the estimate that the Dow would be at 24,326.42 at the end of 2018 if it had simply continued to progress at the "average" percent growth rate characterizing the current Bull market before Trump got elected.

There were ups and downs during the bull market prior to Trump's election and there have been ups and downs since Trump got elected. But overall we're about in the same place as we would've been had things simply continued as they were going. It is what it is. No cherry picking at all.

Choosing the low point most certainly IS cherry picking. You’re not giving Obama “credit” for the collapse from HIS Election Day to the low point.

The low point isn't here yet. 15,000 jobs at GM are gone for Christmas. Why does it seem they always do this kind of shit during the Holidays?

[GannonFan]

Choosing the low point most certainly IS cherry picking. You’re not giving Obama “credit” for the collapse from HIS Election Day to the low point.

The low point isn't here yet. 15,000 jobs at GM are gone for Christmas. Why does it seem they always do this kind of **** during the Holidays?

Agreed - in Mr. Mom they laid him off just before Halloween.

On the bright side, at least they told them now. I'm doing tons of shopping today on Cyber Monday and I would certainly curb the spending a little bit if I knew I was being laid off. Better to know now than to find out in January while I'm paying off the Christmas shopping spree.

As for GM, I'd argue that this is a long time in coming. I was fully supportive of them propping GM up back during the Great Recession - it would've been painful to a lot more people to have had GM crap out then. But eventually poor performance catches up to anyone in a competitive market place and GM still doesn't stack up well against the competition. It sucks for those impacted but even the Washington Generals shake things up after long losing streaks.