U.S. Politics

[Lone Star]

Lifestyle
The CIA Reportedly Pulled Its Top Spy from Russia Because Trump Can't Keep His Mouth Shut"

GQ magazine ... now there's a serious political source. Lifestyle section? Really? And who initially reported this supposed breach? CNN, the lead mule in GET TRUMP.

As I have said before and as it is proven once again:

Anyone with extremely low intelligence can be relatively successful in finding hate Trump headlines when 90% of media reports about Trump are negative. Any of those same intellectually limited individuals can repeat all the unsourced quotes that the hate-Trump media tries to pass off as news. The 3 or 4 Cheerleaders for Failure in this thread who are left (looks like maybe a 5th one joining them in the last 24 hours), prove it every day at least 2 or 3 times a day.

How many of them can intelligently explain or discuss what they've posted? That's a rhetorical question. They're just copying and pasting with no working knowledge of any of it.

And when did this supposedly happen? May 2017 -- over two years ago.

And exactly WHO is providing this inside information and making this case against Trump? No one named -- as usual.

Yet another negative headline and unsourced accusation.

Since the GET TRUMP MOB is running out of things, it will common to see old accusations (like this one from 2 years ago) dredged up again the nearer we get to the election. This is just one of what will be many.

[Lone Star]

...
Here is why "The unemployment rate for black Americans fell sharply to 5.5% in August, hitting its lowest level since record-keeping began in 1972. But the drop was driven primarily by a negative development: Fewer African-Americans were either working or seeking jobs.
The government counts people as unemployed only if they are actively looking for a job. When fewer people seek jobs, the unemployment rate often declines.
...

And yet, the Associated Press article does not provide any data on Black Americans not working or not seeking jobs to support their claim. They just throw that claim out there for any of the GET TRUMP crowd to repeat.

. . . one needs that dirty word Data to back it up, which is continually absent . . .

The initial unemployment data was provided by the US Department of Labor. The claim made by the AP contains no data to refute it; just an accusation meant to minimize historic gains.

Just another exercise in copy & paste without any data.

[Udon Map]

...
Here is why "The unemployment rate for black Americans fell sharply to 5.5% in August, hitting its lowest level since record-keeping began in 1972. But the drop was driven primarily by a negative development: Fewer African-Americans were either working or seeking jobs.
The government counts people as unemployed only if they are actively looking for a job. When fewer people seek jobs, the unemployment rate often declines.
...

And yet, the Associated Press article does not provide any data on Black Americans not working or not seeking jobs to support their claim. They just throw that claim out there for any of the GET TRUMP crowd to repeat.

. . . one needs that dirty word Data to back it up, which is continually absent . . .

The initial unemployment data was provided by the US Department of Labor. The claim made by the AP contains no data to refute it; just an accusation meant to minimize historic gains.

Just another exercise in copy & paste without any data.

However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics does provide data. People who are not actively looking for a job are referred to as "discouraged workers" and not counted in the calculations.

Unemployment has steadily decreased since Trump took office. But that continues a steady trend from the Obama years, so nothing new.

Unemployment.gif (5.53 KiB) Viewed 830 times

(Source: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000006)


And if anyone is interested in digging down, here are all the details, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

[Lone Star]

Unemployment has steadily decreased since Trump took office. But that continues a steady trend from the Obama years, so nothing new.

Couple of things.

1. The issue is Black unemployment. Bayrack didn't have that kind of success, nor did Black households improve their income levels. Income levels regressed through 2015 while the slowest recovery in history was making some progress. (BLS stats are available on their website) Today, there are more Black Americans silent or disappointed than singing Obama's praises after 8 years of elegance. There may be a majority who don't like Trump, but that's normal for every Republican.

2. Lowering overall unemployment might not be anything new, but for those who loved Bayrack in office, it proves that Trump has been successful in accelerating positive results as it applies to jobs and unemployment.

Bayrack and his supporters can't keep claiming that Trump is ruining everything, but want to take credit for everything good on Trump's watch. If Trump was the incompetent that Bayrack worshippers claim, any gains that Obama made before leaving office would have gone negative. That hasn't happened. It's been historically successful. Almost 160 million Americans working is a huge achievement that has not occurred under any other president's watch.

I'll now wait for the poster of the AP article to read the BLS report and provide his thoughtful analysis of the data regarding Black unemployment year-over-year. I've already read it. We'll see if he's motivated enough to provide something thorough and accurate outside of copy & paste.

[Doodoo]

I'll now wait for the poster of the AP article to read the BLS report and provide his thoughtful analysis of the data regarding Black unemployment year-over-year. I've already read it. We'll see if he's motivated enough to provide something thorough and accurate outside of copy & paste.

NOPE Have told you before aint interested in the past Should be focused on whats coming at ya. Plus I am busy with other things Later

[Lone Star]

NOPE Have told you before aint interested in the past Should be focused on whats coming at ya. Plus I am busy with other things Later

Your source was about Trump's efforts with Black American unemployment TODAY.

Is this yet another one of YOUR sources that you did not read?

NOTE: My discussion regarding Bayrack was a response to UM. I quoted him. That should have been a key for you.

By the way, you've proven me correct yet again:

How many of them can intelligently explain or discuss what they've posted? That's a rhetorical question. They're just copying and pasting with no working knowledge of any of it.

[jackspratt]

If you have the time or inclination to skim through LS's posts, you could come away with only 1 impression - that the Bloated Orange Bullshiitter was doing a great job for America, and all Americans.

Why is it then, that consistently, about 60% of the ungrateful wretches can't see and appreciate it, and they disapprove of the way he is doing his job?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pre ... trump.aspx

[Udon Map]

If you have the time or inclination to skim through LS's posts, you could come away with only 1 impression - that the Bloated Orange Bullshiitter was doing a great job for America, and all Americans.

Why is it then, that consistently, about 60% of the ungrateful wretches can't see and appreciate it, and they disapprove of the way he is doing his job?

Assuming that your question is serious and not rhetorical, there are probably several reasons. I do think that he's done some good for the country; although I hardly support everything he's done. A lot of people don't like him because he's a rude, crass, arrogant, childish jerk. Pollsters don't ask what may be the most relevant question in these polls, -- do you like him/her? In one of my previous lives, I was a pollster and campaign consultant. One of the things I learned early on is that, for the most part, people won't vote for someone they don't like. HIllary was a victim of this phenomenon. She had arguably better and more substantive policy proposals, but people couldn't stand her.

[Lone Star]

. . .
Why is it then, that consistently, about 60% of the ungrateful wretches can't see and appreciate it, and they disapprove of the way he is doing his job?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/pre ... trump.aspx

Another negative poll about Trump, and another effort proving me correct again.

How many of them can articulate what they are FOR, instead of just repeating the hate Trump mantra? They've hated Trump for at least 3 years. Everyone gets it. What do they support?

So why can't these geniuses put forth one idea -- specifically and based on legitimate information -- that would be better than what Trump is doing AND good for America? Why not? Because that would take knowledge, thought and work. They don't have that necessary knowledge of US issues, and they prove it every day. They're not posting to discuss anything. They post to attack Trump or attack America. Nothing else.

How many polls ever show Trump above water? I'd guess less than 5% of them. So? It's been that way since 2015.

There doesn't seem to be a list anywhere from any of the Cheerleaders for Failure that outlines what Trump has done WRONG for America that can be provided in any measurable, specific way.

Sure they hate him, don't like him, think he's stupid, think he's mean, think he's corrupt, think he's fat, think he's going to start a nuclear war, think he's racist, think he's orange, think everyone in the world hates him, think he cheats at golf, blah blah blah. We get it. We've been hearing that drumbeat from the GET TRUMP MOB since 2015. But there's no measurable data to back up any of their hysteria. Hell, with all of those nonsense claims, the Democrats can't even find anything legit for which to have an impeachment vote! Just hate, Hate, HATE TRUMP BECAUSE TRUMP.

Trump has made clear since he announced his candidacy that he is there to work and fight for America and to help all Americans at all socioeconomic levels. Trump has done it in specific and measurable ways. The data proves it.

[Lone Star]

. . .
One of the things I learned early on is that, for the most part, people won't vote for someone they don't like. HIllary was a victim of this phenomenon. . . people couldn't stand her.

And yet despite all of that, the polls for Hillary showed that the electorate was still willing to vote for her all the way up to election day and even in early state exit polling.

With Trump, he also had high negatives going into the election in 2016. In some polls, Trump's negatives were higher than Hillary's negatives.

If voters polled couldn't stand Hillary, those polled were still saying they'd vote for her.

I think the view that "people couldn't stand her" was learned AFTER she got hammered in the election. It certainly didn't look like it was going to impact her enough to lose the election.

[mickojak]

I can't wait to see the democrat policy promises for the next election.

It's gunna be very, very interesting.
Mick

[Lone Star]

I can't wait to see the democrat policy promises for the next election.

It's gunna be very, very interesting.
Mick

Most of them are already out there, Mick.

When you see them, you won't think they're running for office in the United States of America.

[mickojak]

Most of them are already out there, Mick.

Then, they aint got a hope in hell.

Everyone's gunna vote for open borders and end up like Europe?

I doubt it.

[Udon Map]

Unemployment has steadily decreased since Trump took office. But that continues a steady trend from the Obama years, so nothing new.

1. The issue is Black unemployment. Bayrack didn't have that kind of success....

Yes he did. Here's a graphic of black unemployment rates starting on the day that Obama first took office, also from BLS. The story's pretty much the same.

[Lone Star]

Yes, there was unemployment decline.

Here's the complete information that I posted regarded Black unemployment that was challenged by the Head Cheerleader.

. . .
Black unemployment and the gap between white and black unemployment reached RECORD LOWS in August.

Black American unemployment dropped from 6% to 5.5%.

For decades, the ratio of black to white unemployment has usually been double for Black Americans. In the past, as unemployment numbers fell, that gap remained. That gap has narrowed from 200% to 185% in 2018 to now under 162%.

The remarkable thing about this gap reduction is that it is usually reduced in bad times -- when EVERYONE is losing jobs. This record-setting pace is occurring when everyone is GAINING EMPLOYMENT.
. . .

It had more to do than just Trump's record unemployment numbers. The unemployment gap has narrowed. Wages and household income during the 2 1/2 Trump years has also risen more than Obama's 8 years office. In fact, BLS data suggests that annual income was almost $1,000 less up until 2015. I didn't read anything past that year.

Regardless, none of it takes away from the staggering success since.

Hat tip to you and your research. You're one of the very few -- if the only one -- who brings data.

[papafarang]

Yes, there was unemployment decline.

Here's the complete information that I posted regarded Black unemployment that was challenged by the Head Cheerleader.

. . .
Black unemployment and the gap between white and black unemployment reached RECORD LOWS in August.

Black American unemployment dropped from 6% to 5.5%.

For decades, the ratio of black to white unemployment has usually been double for Black Americans. In the past, as unemployment numbers fell, that gap remained. That gap has narrowed from 200% to 185% in 2018 to now under 162%.

The remarkable thing about this gap reduction is that it is usually reduced in bad times -- when EVERYONE is losing jobs. This record-setting pace is occurring when everyone is GAINING EMPLOYMENT.
. . .

It had more to do than just Trump's record unemployment numbers. The unemployment gap has narrowed. Wages and household income during the 2 1/2 Trump years has also risen more than Obama's 8 years office. In fact, BLS data suggests that annual income was almost $1,000 less up until 2015. I didn't read anything past that year.

Regardless, none of it takes away from the staggering success since.

Hat tip to you and your research. You're one of the very few -- if the only one -- who brings data.

Unlike false or misleading data,or maybe you did not research the data. misleading , false and fake data you constantly copy and paste is why people don't bother checking facts that you post. They already assume that as 9 out of 10 times it's BS so by bother wasting their time checking. Yor credabilty to be non partisan just don't exist ..Just say'in

[Domat]

https://youtu.be/O9OdIMO26C4

Can army members vote?

[Doodoo]

It keeps coming up as news

CIA Reportedly Had Asset So Close To Putin That Spy Could Photograph Secret Documents (But we are hearing someone close to the Whitehouse, if not in the Whitehouse had never heard about keeping their mouth shut)

This time CNN, New York Times and Washington Post locks like after who was it the Lifestyle magazine.
CIA Reportedly Had Asset So Close To Putin That Spy Could Photograph Secret Documents

The CIA spent decades cultivating an informant who became so close to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the individual could photograph documents on his desk and send them back to U.S. intelligence officials, according to a series of shocking reports published by CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post on Monday.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/cia-russ ... 52589.html

[TJ]

^ More news (refuting false news) on this subject.

NYT: CIA Extracted Kremlin Spy From Russia Because Of Media Reports, Not Trump
The CIA extracted a longtime Kremlin asset from Russia in 2017 because of concerns that media reports would put him at risk, according to a New York Times report.

The story undercuts a key aspect of a report that CNN published earlier Monday about the CIA operation.

CNN’s Jim Sciutto reported that the CIA extracted the asset due in part to concerns about President Donald Trump’s handling of classified information. Sciutto, who served in the Obama administration, reported that the Russian source was removed soon after Trump met with Russian government officials in the Oval Office in May 2017. U.S. officials became concerned after that meeting that Trump and some in his administration might somehow reveal details about intelligence operations.

But according to The Times, the CIA offered to extract the asset in 2016, well before Trump took office.

The mole rejected the initial offer for exfiltration, but ultimately agreed to leave Russia in 2017, after the CIA raised concerns about increased media scrutiny of the sources the U.S. intelligence community used to determine that Russia meddled in the 2016 election. (RELATED: CNN Analyst Questions Report That CIA Extracted Russian Spy Due To Concerns About Trump)

“But former intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency’s sources alone was the impetus for the extraction,” The Times story reads.

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/09/09/ ... rts-trump/

[Doodoo]

TJ thanks for the info
Sounds like a movie may come about with Tom Cruise, Matt Damon, Keanu Reeves or maybe all of them