Perspective
Well-known member
Trump's Industrial Rebirth Is a Dead Endhttps://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-07/trump-s-industrial-rebirth-is-a-dead-end
President Trump
- Thread starter Movingup
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
This is what I am talking about. How do you measure how attitude changes how business' decide to deploy capital?...hard to measure but the reaction can sometimes be obvious. In many ways a President is a kind of cheerleader. Reagan was and now Trump is. I know some will not want to give any credit here but I think attitude translates to action.
Trump's first full month in office brings massive employment boom as U.S. companies added whopping 298,000 new jobs in February
New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000
Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent
Construction jobs increased by 66,000 in February, and the manufacturing sector added 32,000.
'February proved to be an incredibly strong month for employment with increases we have not seen in years,' Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president of the ADP Research Institute, said in a statement
'Confidence is playing a large role,' Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, told CNBC.
'Businesses are anticipating a lot of good stuff ? tax cuts, less regulation. They are hiring more aggressively.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4293622/Trump-s-month-brings-massive-employment-boom.html#ixzz4akVYZV4k
This is a good first step - recognizing when you're attacking the person making a comment, rather than addressing the issue. The next step is to introspectively ask, "Why do I feel the urge to do this? What about the comment or article upsets me so much, and why?"
doesn't upset me. You add no value.. just bot chat.
I'm impressed. Keep up the good work, Mr. President. I'm glad all of those golf trips are paying off. You are truly amazing, almost godlike in your ability to get employers to hire so many people so quicky after eight years of Katrina-like disaster.
Exactly! Good job!
Not an unfair observation, but, how would you generalize Trump who received 3M fewer votes? Bad candidate, even worse message?
Hmm, how 'bout this?
Deeply flawed candidate with a targeted message to white male working class voters, using a strategy of promising to solve all of their problems, while fanning the flames of fear.
Perspective
Well-known member
In the age of Trump, can Democrats turn Orange County blue? Their first target is Darrell Issa
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-the-a...r-first-target-is-darrell-issa-100018648.html
These largely white, largely affluent, largely college-educated and largely suburban voters used to be a source of strength for Republicans. But in 2016, Trump underperformed among white college graduates, and even lost college women to Clinton by 7 percentage points. Combine that weakness with Trump?s widespread unpopularity among Latinos and other minorities, and you start to see why Orange County flipped to Clinton: Trump was a particularly bad fit for its evolving electorate.
?Our wealthier enclaves didn?t vote in as high a margin for the Republican candidate as they have in the past,? admits Orange County GOP Chairman Fred Whitaker. ?Meanwhile, the Latino demographic hasn?t been with us lately, and the Asian vote wasn?t as strong. Some of that had to do with Trump. He just didn?t resonate.?
?Donald Trump achieved tremendous success with white working-class voters last year, but he didn?t get those voters for free,? adds Schnur. ?In order to win over all those NASCAR dads, he had to trade away a lot soccer moms.?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/in-the-a...r-first-target-is-darrell-issa-100018648.html
These largely white, largely affluent, largely college-educated and largely suburban voters used to be a source of strength for Republicans. But in 2016, Trump underperformed among white college graduates, and even lost college women to Clinton by 7 percentage points. Combine that weakness with Trump?s widespread unpopularity among Latinos and other minorities, and you start to see why Orange County flipped to Clinton: Trump was a particularly bad fit for its evolving electorate.
?Our wealthier enclaves didn?t vote in as high a margin for the Republican candidate as they have in the past,? admits Orange County GOP Chairman Fred Whitaker. ?Meanwhile, the Latino demographic hasn?t been with us lately, and the Asian vote wasn?t as strong. Some of that had to do with Trump. He just didn?t resonate.?
?Donald Trump achieved tremendous success with white working-class voters last year, but he didn?t get those voters for free,? adds Schnur. ?In order to win over all those NASCAR dads, he had to trade away a lot soccer moms.?
Perspective
Well-known member
Trump Budget Proposal Reflects Working-Class Resentment of the Poor
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/business/economy/trump-budget-entitlements-working-class.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/business/economy/trump-budget-entitlements-working-class.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
J
jmoney74
Guest
Perspective is Like a bot at this point. Yes a personal attack.
morekaos
Well-known member
morekaos said:
This is what I am talking about. How do you measure how attitude changes how business' decide to deploy capital?...hard to measure but the reaction can sometimes be obvious. In many ways a President is a kind of cheerleader. Reagan was and now Trump is. I know some will not want to give any credit here but I think attitude translates to action.
Trump's first full month in office brings massive employment boom as U.S. companies added whopping 298,000 new jobs in February
New job figures from ADP beat economists' estimates by more than 100,000
Official February numbers will be out on Friday and are expected to lower the unemployment rate to 4.7 per cent
Construction jobs increased by 66,000 in February, and the manufacturing sector added 32,000.
'February proved to be an incredibly strong month for employment with increases we have not seen in years,' Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president of the ADP Research Institute, said in a statement
'Confidence is playing a large role,' Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics, told CNBC.
'Businesses are anticipating a lot of good stuff ? tax cuts, less regulation. They are hiring more aggressively.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4293622/Trump-s-month-brings-massive-employment-boom.html#ixzz4akVYZV4k
Perspective
Well-known member
jmoney74 said:
This is a good first step - recognizing when you're attacking the person making a comment, rather than addressing the issue. The next step is to introspectively ask, "Why do I feel the urge to do this? What about the comment or article upsets me so much, and why?"
J
jmoney74
Guest
Perspective said:
doesn't upset me. You add no value.. just bot chat.
Loco_local
Active member
I'm impressed. Keep up the good work, Mr. President. I'm glad all of those golf trips are paying off. You are truly amazing, almost godlike in your ability to get employers to hire so many people so quicky after eight years of Katrina-like disaster.
Ready2Downsize
Well-known member
Loco_local said:
Exactly! Good job!
morekaos
Well-known member
A social experiment whose results lay bare the elite biases that they cannot admit. This was done in deep blue land with at overwhelmingly liberal audience and stager...the results stunned them but are no surprise to most others.
What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016?a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who?d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women?Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton?s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
Many were shocked to find that they couldn?t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton?or that Brenda King?s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they?d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of ?now I understand how this happened??meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump?s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman?that was a theme. One person said, ?I?m just so struck by how precise Trump?s technique is.? Another?a musical theater composer, actually?said that Trump created ?hummable lyrics,? while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no ?hook? to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate?you know, ?I wouldn?t vote for either one.? Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was ?really punchable? because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don?t like, but you know is doing good things for you. I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man?s body, and also by the fact that I didn?t find Trump?s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!" The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.
Audience members found that the arguments from Trump?s character sounded more convincing coming from a woman.
?About halfway through watching this it hit me ? I see how he (Trump) won,? one audience member commented.
They also agreed that many of the arguments coming out of the Clinton character?s mouth seemed less believable and said that the character came off as ?untrustworthy? or ?fake.?
?I expected to feel validated in my beliefs,? a left-leaning member of the audience noted. ?But I thought Gordon was weak. I found myself expecting him, as a man, to attack more.?
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
What if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Had Swapped Genders?
A restaging of the presidential debates with an actress playing Trump and an actor playing Clinton yielded surprising results.
After watching the second televised debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in October 2016?a battle between the first female candidate nominated by a major party and an opponent who?d just been caught on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women?Maria Guadalupe, an associate professor of economics and political science at INSEAD, had an idea. Millions had tuned in to watch a man face off against a woman for the first set of co-ed presidential debates in American history. But how would their perceptions change, she wondered, if the genders of the candidates were switched? She pictured an actress playing Trump, replicating his words, gestures, body language, and tone verbatim, while an actor took on Clinton?s role in the same way. What would the experiment reveal about male and female communication styles, and the differing standards by which we unconsciously judge them?
Many were shocked to find that they couldn?t seem to find in Jonathan Gordon what they had admired in Hillary Clinton?or that Brenda King?s clever tactics seemed to shine in moments where they?d remembered Donald Trump flailing or lashing out. For those Clinton voters trying to make sense of the loss, it was by turns bewildering and instructive, raising as many questions about gender performance and effects of sexism as it answered.
Based on the conversations after the performances, it sounded like audience members had their beliefs rattled in a similar way. What were some themes that emerged from their responses?
We heard a lot of ?now I understand how this happened??meaning how Trump won the election. People got upset. There was a guy two rows in front of me who was literally holding his head in his hands, and the person with him was rubbing his back. The simplicity of Trump?s message became easier for people to hear when it was coming from a woman?that was a theme. One person said, ?I?m just so struck by how precise Trump?s technique is.? Another?a musical theater composer, actually?said that Trump created ?hummable lyrics,? while Clinton talked a lot, and everything she was was true and factual, but there was no ?hook? to it. Another theme was about not liking either candidate?you know, ?I wouldn?t vote for either one.? Someone said that Jonathan Gordon [the male Hillary Clinton] was ?really punchable? because of all the smiling. And a lot of people were just very surprised by the way it upended their expectations about what they thought they would feel or experience. There was someone who described Brenda King [the female Donald Trump] as his Jewish aunt who would take care of him, even though he might not like his aunt. Someone else described her as the middle school principal who you don?t like, but you know is doing good things for you. I was surprised by how critical I was seeing [Clinton] on a man?s body, and also by the fact that I didn?t find Trump?s behavior on a woman to be off-putting. I remember turning to Maria at one point in the rehearsals and saying, "I kind of want to have a beer with her!" The majority of my extended family voted for Trump. In some ways, I developed empathy for people who voted for him by doing this project, which is not what I was expecting. I expected it to make me more angry at them, but it gave me an understanding of what they might have heard or experienced when he spoke.
Audience members found that the arguments from Trump?s character sounded more convincing coming from a woman.
?About halfway through watching this it hit me ? I see how he (Trump) won,? one audience member commented.
They also agreed that many of the arguments coming out of the Clinton character?s mouth seemed less believable and said that the character came off as ?untrustworthy? or ?fake.?
?I expected to feel validated in my beliefs,? a left-leaning member of the audience noted. ?But I thought Gordon was weak. I found myself expecting him, as a man, to attack more.?
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/trump-clinton-debates-gender-reversal.html
nosuchreality
Well-known member
So if Hillary were a man, shes even less likable and even less believable?
Perspective
Well-known member
morekaos said:
Not an unfair observation, but, how would you generalize Trump who received 3M fewer votes? Bad candidate, even worse message?
Perspective
Well-known member
morekaos said:
Hmm, how 'bout this?
Deeply flawed candidate with a targeted message to white male working class voters, using a strategy of promising to solve all of their problems, while fanning the flames of fear.