Is there any measurable way the country does better with Republican presidents?

gemini104104 said:
Repukes have done nothing to support or establish a society that serves its wellbeing and in a civilized manner. Repukes are at war against America and anything else of a civilized nature on Earth, and their war efforts against Democracy and society over the past 20 years, culminating in their failed effort to do a coup on Democracy n 2020 proved that. This includes repukes as officially verified who facilitated the foreign hacking of the 2016 election in the bitch of foreign enemies' tRump's gutter favor that came with a curse and no thanks to their brainwashed and hate mongering and addled minded voters. This atrocity in violation of the will of the majority that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and U.S. Constitutional law. This atrocity also includes repukes whoring with foreign enemies on the taxpayer dime to further undermine the common decency of humanity and the survival of civilization on Earth. To run with tRump and his repuke mob in the counsels of their sewer even against their own ignorant, uncivilized and treasonous voters, basically amounts for someone to be ok at eventually burning in hell for an eternity on their body and soul:

The Real Threat to American Democracy
It’s not Republican politicians. It’s their conspiracy-addled voters.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...-republican-politicians-voters-democracy.html
Click to expand...

The United States was never a democracy.
Hillary Clinton and you discard the Constitution of the United States. You can't hide behind the document you despise.
 
Mina said:
I wouldn't state it quite that simply. There are a whole bunch of factors in the mix at any given time, so the data is going to be really noisy. But, yes, I think presidential policies are one of those factors, and that the fact the Democrat-led eras saw stronger trends isn't a coincidence.... it's at least in part because of superior policy.



Sometimes. Although the new budget year doesn't start until the October after a president takes office, there are supplemental appropriations that can start immediately.... such as the emergency COVID payments Biden lined up in the spring of 2021. And, of course, the executive agencies start to pivot right after inauguration day, with new direction from the top and new agency heads. That's particularly important with something like teen pregnancy, where a bad president might, say, use the executive branch powers to promote the cult of chastity. That tends to result in higher rates of teen pregnancy (since teens form a mindset that they're going to wait for marriage, and then aren't prepared with contraception when they make a spur-of-the-moment decision to have sex). When a good president uses his power to install public health officials and other figures in social agencies who have realistic and science-based approaches to issues like that, it can pay dividends quickly. Even just using previously-appropriated budgets, they can improve their messaging and outreach from day one.



I explained one, above. The misuse of presidential power to promulgate Christian taboos around sexuality has been very bad news when it comes to teen pregnancy. As indicated, you can see that not just with teen birth rates dropping faster during Democratic administrations than Republican ones, but also with the lower teen birth rates in more liberal states. In such states, the approach to these issues is more about protecting kids from the risks of unprotected sex, and less about promoting a religious fetish around virgin brides. When you're working to protect children rather than to evangelize celibacy before marriage, the results improve. You can also see that when it comes to STD's. The states with the highest rates of sexually transmitted diseases are AK, MS, LA, SC, and NM. Not coincidentally, four out of five of those are hard-right states, and none is very liberal.

https://www.everlywell.com/blog/sti-testing/std-rates-by-state/



You've basically summed up the issue, right there. Democrats see the objective as being to protect kids -- to make sure that any sex they are having is consensual, and that they're armed with the knowledge and equipment needed to make sure it doesn't result in a pregnancy or disease. Republicans see the objective as being to enforce their religion's sexual taboos against children. When a leader focuses on protecting kids, kids are protected better. When a leader uses kids as pawns in a proxy war over faith, bad shit happens.



Exactly, big declines in averages under Democrats, small ones under Republicans.



It definitely isn't. If you HONESTLY think that's the argument I'm making, reread. If you're only PRETENDING to think that's the argument I'm making, stop and consider whether an honest approach to this discussion might serve us better.



It's not clearly correlated with socio-economic class. Maine, for instance, is our 12th-poorest state, in terms of GDP per capita. Alaska is our 9th richest (and it's been as high as second in recent years). Yet the teen birth rate in Maine is quite low (10th lowest in the country), and in Alaska it's above average (18th highest). But yes, mismanagement of red-state economies by their conservative leaders probably does contribute to the problem. And part of that is probably the divergence of median income and GDP per capita in red states. They often tailor policy around the rich, such that incomes for most people don't really reflect how much wealth is in the state. Texas is another good example, with the 20th-highest GDP per capita, but that wealth so concentrated that it also has the 12th-highest poverty rate. It's a fairly rich state that looks, for all the world, like a poor one. That results in it having sky-high teen birth rates and other sociological problems we'd expect from a dirt-poor state, rather than an above-average one.

As for "fewer minorities," that is a powerfully attractive explanation for right-wingers, because nothing is more tempting than blaming political failures on "those people." But the numbers don't really support the idea that diversity is destiny. Massachusetts has the lowest teen birth rate in the country. Depending on how you define "minority," it's somewhere between median and well above median when it comes to the share of minorities. It's got the 26th-highest percent of white residents, which puts it right in the middle. In terms of percent foreign-born, it's the seventh-highest of any state, so a lot of diversity there. It also has high religious diversity -- a lot of states are practically all Protestant, whereas Massachusetts has a diverse mix of Catholics, Protestants, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists. So, it's clearly possible to have a diverse state with quite low birth rates. Connecticut is another example, with the fourth-lowest teen birth rates and demographic diversity about on par with Massachusetts. Or consider New Jersey or New York. They have the sixth- and eighth-lowest teen birth rates, respectively. They have the eleventh and thirteenth lowest percentage of white people of any states. That's a lot of minorities, and yet low teen birth rates.

Or look at it the other way. West Virginia and Kentucky aren't exactly setting the standard for racial diversity, or diversity of any kind. They're packed with white, Protestant, native-born Americans. They're our third and tenth whitest states, yet have the eighth and sixth highest birth rates for teens. Turns out lousy leadership and a diseased culture will cause problems no matter how few minorities you have.
Click to expand...

You cannot use random numbers as data. Argument from randU fallacy.
Bigotry.
Racism.
 
Mina said:
Republican presidential eras saw teen birth rates decline much more slowly, and poverty rates actually increase, net.

Perhaps the silliness of your way of looking at this sticks out to me more because I do financial analysis for a living, and I know that taking that approach would get you laughed out of the room when it comes to stuff where people have to put their money where your mouth is.

For example, you have two investment choices. You put $1 million in one and the value rises to $2 million over the course of a year. In the second investment, you invest $2 million and it falls to $1.1 million over the course of the year. Now you try to argue the second investment was better, because the average value in that investment over the course of the year was slightly higher. Naturally, nobody who made that argument would ever be entrusted with any position of responsibility, because it's patently absurd.
Click to expand...

Still making up numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.
 
evince said:
June is looming
Click to expand...

Know what's coming in June? Record high fuel prices, fuel shortages (none available to buy), and empty shelves at the grocery stores with rising food prices.

If it gets to the point where people can't go to work, it will be SHTF. Better hope you have guns and are ready to use them.

They're modifying gas signs out west to accept double digits on the dollar side.

Think about that one, deshy..

While you're at it I want you to look hard and deep at how much you think Democrats and Biden care about Americans and why. I mean that.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
...or even kids that are born.
Click to expand...
Very right you are.

Like many people:
I don't consider grooming children to be protecting them.
I don't consider mutilating their genitals to be protecting them.
I don't consider masking them up (and others around them) to the point where they have developmental issues (speech or otherwise) to be protecting them.
I don't consider instilling racism and fear into them to be protecting them.
I don't consider instilling confusion and lies about their anatomy to be protecting them.
I don't consider the condoning of child pornography to be protecting them.
I don't consider the condoning of joint bathrooms (based on the buzzword "gender identification") to be protecting them.
I don't consider the "everyone is a winner" mentality to be protecting them.

These are all things that liberals tend to condone doing to children AFTER they are born, IF those children even manage to make it out of their mother's womb alive, and the list could go on and on...
 
Matt Dillon said:
Revoking the way Trump fixed the fuel supply situation IS Biden's policy.

Also adding increased regulations and slow-walking permits.
Click to expand...

What regulations increased inflation?

The permits applied to future permits so that did not affect the fuel supply. Also, the courts blocked that decision.

The fuel consumed has increased under Biden:

"In 2021, the United States consumed an average of about 19.78 million barrels of petroleum per day, or a total of about 7.22 billion barrels of petroleum. This was an increase in consumption of about 1.6 million barrels per day over consumption in 2020. The increase was largely the result of the economy recovering from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
 
Flash said:
What regulations increased inflation?

The permits applied to future permits so that did not affect the fuel supply. Also, the courts blocked that decision.

The fuel consumed has increased under Biden:

"In 2021, the United States consumed an average of about 19.78 million barrels of petroleum per day, or a total of about 7.22 billion barrels of petroleum. This was an increase in consumption of about 1.6 million barrels per day over consumption in 2020. The increase was largely the result of the economy recovering from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6
Click to expand...

:palm:

Alright, game on, motherfucker. 1/2 hr tops and I'm gonna smash your nose in the catshit.
 
Okay so I'm ready.

On Biden's 1st day in office he revoked every Trump EO that was making America fuel independent:

Which mostly are these:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...als-for-high-priority-infrastructure-projects

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-growth-by-reviewing-the-waters-of-the-united

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...oting-energy-independence-and-economic-growth

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rs-for-national-defense-and-space-exploration

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...enting-america-first-offshore-energy-strategy

13868

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ing-energy-infrastructure-and-economic-growth
==========================================
more on that here:

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2019/0...ting-energy-infrastructure-and-energy-growth/


https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...e-nations-economic-recovery-from-the-covid-19

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/22/2018-11101/efficient-federal-operations

Biden did that on his 1st day in office in section 7 here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...d-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/

It's all public record and easily searchable.

With the price of fuel goes the price of everything, as everyone will soon find out by this summer.

Just know that Biden/Obama intentionally did this to everyone. And there's no way they could have thought it would be to the benefit of Americans.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Okay so I'm ready.

On Biden's 1st day in office he revoked every Trump EO that was making America fuel independent:

Which mostly are these:

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...als-for-high-priority-infrastructure-projects

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...-growth-by-reviewing-the-waters-of-the-united

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...oting-energy-independence-and-economic-growth

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...rs-for-national-defense-and-space-exploration

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...enting-america-first-offshore-energy-strategy

13868

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ing-energy-infrastructure-and-economic-growth
==========================================
more on that here:

https://eelp.law.harvard.edu/2019/0...ting-energy-infrastructure-and-energy-growth/


https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...e-nations-economic-recovery-from-the-covid-19

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/22/2018-11101/efficient-federal-operations

Biden did that on his 1st day in office in section 7 here:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing...d-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/

It's all public record and easily searchable.

With the price of fuel goes the price of everything, as everyone will soon find out by this summer.

Just know that Biden/Obama intentionally did this to everyone. And there's no way they could have thought it would be to the benefit of Americans.
Click to expand...

It's clear that Biden only wants to destroy America.
 
Flash said:
What regulations increased inflation?
Click to expand...
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Glass-Stegall act of 1933, the Bank Holding act of 1935, and the continuing act of printing money faster than wealth being created.
Flash said:
The permits applied to future permits so that did not affect the fuel supply.
Click to expand...
Lie.
Flash said:
Also, the courts blocked that decision.
Click to expand...
Lie.
Flash said:
The fuel consumed has increased under Biden:
Click to expand...
Only because the economy is a tad better than when Democrats shut it down.
Flash said:
"In 2021, the United States consumed an average of about 19.78 million barrels of petroleum per day, or a total of about 7.22 billion barrels of petroleum. This was an increase in consumption of about 1.6 million barrels per day over consumption in 2020. The increase was largely the result of the economy recovering from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic."
Click to expand...
Covid19 did not shut down the economy. Democrats did.

Now, the Fed is out of options. If the Fed tightens up at all, uncontrolled deflation will occur, being especially ruinous to the government. If the Fed inflates by monetary easing (printing money) or by lowering interest rates, out of control inflation will occur.

The government is forced to choose between a debt crash and a cash crash. My bet is that they will choose a cash crash, and all the inflation and even hyperinflation that goes with it.
 
Mina said:
In another thread, we were discussing the way that, on average, the country has had a much better private-sector job creation rate during Democratic presidencies than Republican ones. It got me thinking: is there ANY indicator you can think of where performance hasn't been better, on average, during Democratic presidencies?

Famously, the country has MUCH higher real GDP growth rates when Democrats are president, stronger median real income growth, and better stock market performance. Also, it's well established that while there has been a small net increase in poverty rates during Republican presidencies, there's been a gigantic net decrease in those rates during Democratic presidencies. Dem eras also look better when it comes to the change in the share of Americans covered by health insurance.

But surely there must be SOME indicator that looks better for the Republicans, right?

My first thought was maybe crime, since Republicans talk a good game when it comes to "law and order," and have been eager to incarcerate a large share of Americans to try to achieve that. There are two ways we could score that: average rates or change in rates.

Using the murder rate as a proxy, the average murder rate during Republican presidencies is 7.5 (going back to 1960 and up to 2020). The average during Democratic presidencies is 6.3.

Calculating it, instead, by the change in rates, on average murder rates fell 0.05 points during Democratic presidencies, and rose 0.6 points during Republican presidencies.

So, whichever way you calculate that, Democratic presidential eras look better.

https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The next thought that occurred to me is inflation, since Republicans are hawkish on that. Again, there are two main ways you could score that: the average inflation rate per year, or the change in the rate of inflation from the start of a presidency to the end. The former looks better for the Democrats (3.17%, average, versus 4.16% for Republicans). The latter, though, looks better for Republicans (largely on the strength of Reagan inheriting high rates and leaving fairly low ones).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FPCPITOTLZGUSA#0

So, out of all the indicators I've thought of, Dems look better on all of them except inflation.... and that one depends on how you score it. Are there any others you can think of that look better for the Republicans?
Click to expand...

The problem with the current Republican party is they have no ideas. They can't govern, they can't lead. All they can do is harness racist rage for their own ends.

All they are are culture war propagandists, dividing the country to keep us weak. Republicans are the Nazi party of the 21st Century.
 
Into the Night said:
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Glass-Stegall act of 1933, the Bank Holding act of 1935, and the continuing act of printing money faster than wealth being created.

Lie.

Lie.

Only because the economy is a tad better than when Democrats shut it down.

Covid19 did not shut down the economy. Democrats did.

Now, the Fed is out of options. If the Fed tightens up at all, uncontrolled deflation will occur, being especially ruinous to the government. If the Fed inflates by monetary easing (printing money) or by lowering interest rates, out of control inflation will occur.

The government is forced to choose between a debt crash and a cash crash. My bet is that they will choose a cash crash, and all the inflation and even hyperinflation that goes with it.
Click to expand...

The Dems fought to save as many lives as possible during covid and the Republican fucks fought common sense every step of the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top