Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted Saturday at 08:52 PM They want this. They secretly want a dictator. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weepaws 3,208 Posted Saturday at 09:16 PM No, I don’t think they want a dictator, but they are blind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BrahmaBulls 778 Posted Saturday at 09:17 PM 25 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said: They want this. They secretly want a dictator. All day every day with you 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted Saturday at 09:29 PM “Hey boss, know that report I handed in last month? well, I was wayyyy off, and I know it’s not the first time. We good?” 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Horseman 2,492 Posted Saturday at 09:34 PM Your're fired! Dictator!!!!! News Flash: The BOSS can fire anyone he wants. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cdub100 3,935 Posted Saturday at 09:45 PM AI is taking everyone's jobs. The numbers will continue to decline. If you own a business, you're using AI. Your employees are using AI, and so are your customers. Coders, engineers, pretty much all white collar jobs will be gone in the next 10 years. Blue-collar jobs will follow. Robots are getting better and will soon be able to replace your plumbers and electricians. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Grace Under Pressure 122 Posted Saturday at 10:45 PM 1 hour ago, Ron_Artest said: They want this. They secretly want a dictator. Secretly? Openly. MAGA when asked if their leader, who they worship, should be dictator of the USA: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 4,152 Posted Saturday at 11:07 PM 1 hour ago, BrahmaBulls said: All day every day with you And, of course, they have no idea what "dictator" even means. If there is one thing the left is good at, it's using the wrong words in the wrong context. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 3,577 Posted Saturday at 11:08 PM All the dictator hand wringing from the geeks who support a political party that didn't give them a choice in the last presidential primary is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 4,152 Posted Saturday at 11:10 PM Just now, 5-Points said: All the dictator hand wringing from the geeks who support a political party that didn't give them a choice in the last presidential primary is simultaneously hilarious and pathetic. It's quite amazing that they can't even see it. Hilarious, even. The guy who fired someone for poor job performance: dictator The party who didn't let their people nominate their candidate: not dictator 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 3,577 Posted Saturday at 11:10 PM 3 hours ago, The Real timschochet said: @Dizkneelande @EternalShinyAndChrome @5-Points You guys strike me as honest I think. You all troll a little but most of your posts seem to be real. So WTF people? Do you REALLY want to defend this crap? Are you all so invested in owning the libs that you can’t admit how awful this is? He's the boss, he can fire whoever he wants. Thems the breaks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 3,577 Posted Saturday at 11:13 PM 1 minute ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said: It's quite amazing that they can't even see it. Hilarious, even. The guy who fired someone for poor job performance: dictator The party who didn't let their people nominate their candidate: not dictator It's comical. Their lack of self awareness is stunning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,299 Posted Saturday at 11:18 PM “The best books... are those that tell you what you know already.”― George Orwell, 1984 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:16 AM 1 hour ago, 5-Points said: He's the boss, he can fire whoever he wants. Thems the breaks. So you're good with him firing people who don't lie for him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 12:24 AM She was off by 70 pct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:31 AM 7 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: She was off by 70 pct? That not why she was fired. She was fired because he said her numbers were rigged. He said she gave fake numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 12:33 AM 1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said: That not why she was fired. She was fired because he said her numbers were rigged. He said she gave fake numbers. But she was off by 70 pct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EternalShinyAndChrome 4,152 Posted yesterday at 12:53 AM 20 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: But she was off by 70 pct? Yeah, numbers off by 70% ARE fake numbers. This Ghey_Artest gal isn't very bright, is she? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 01:01 AM 25 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: But she was off by 70 pct? Do you even know how this works? It's a series of surveys of businesses that report hiring or firings. They make assumptions off the first survey, then refine twice more as they get more data. Again she wasn't fired for being 70% off on the revision. She was fired because he said that was fake. How abnormal are the revisions in this month’s jobs report? | MPR News https://share.google/hlfVAxm6MlrsTTAI2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 01:03 AM 7 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said: Yeah, numbers off by 70% ARE fake numbers. This Ghey_Artest gal isn't very bright, is she? It's not fake you idiot. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 01:09 AM 7 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said: Do you even know how this works? It's a series of surveys of businesses that report hiring or firings. They make assumptions off the first survey, then refine twice more as they get more data. Again she wasn't fired for being 70% off on the revision. She was fired because he said that was fake. How abnormal are the revisions in this month’s jobs report? | MPR News https://share.google/hlfVAxm6MlrsTTAI2 So who was off by 70 pct? A whole bunch of people that she was in charge of? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mike Honcho 5,299 Posted yesterday at 01:14 AM On 3/22/2024 at 9:15 AM, Hardcore troubadour said: Have they come out with the revised unemployment numbers yet? So when Biden was president, HT understood about that unemployment numbers would be revised, but now, not so much. Cognitive decline? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 01:24 AM 14 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So who was off by 70 pct? A whole bunch of people that she was in charge of? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 01:26 AM 10 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said: So when Biden was president, HT understood about that unemployment numbers would be revised, but now, not so much. Cognitive decline? So when Biden was president, the downward revisions were because they were trying to make the biden numbers look better. But with Trump the downwards revisions are to make trump look bad. Imagine being that brainwashed. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dizkneelande 1,104 Posted yesterday at 01:46 AM 36 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So who was off by 70 pct? A whole bunch of people that she was in charge of? ADP job numbers have the real BLS numbers about 3-6 months early. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tree of Knowledge 1,881 Posted yesterday at 11:07 AM Incompetence gets you fired by Father Trump. Pretty basic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 11:12 AM Some more data if you're truly interested in this topic: https://archive.ph/pFTjs Bloomberg article discussing how the doge cuts have limited the amount of data collected and how the data is collected. This is related to CPI and the conclusion is that inflation is probably higher than the govt understands. This can also apply to jobs, as we see the large downward revisions. Less people collecting and analyzing data, less accurate data. Another article highlighting that the revisions indicate that we didnt understand just how bad the economy is. They use 2008 as an example. Big Downward Jobs Revisions Could Be a Warning Sign for the Economy - The New York Times https://share.google/TRlHwAlfmc8u1IWKU Firing the head of the bls is not going to make this better. All it will do is direct the new head of the bls to present fake data to make trump happy. Regardless you can't just take the data. Real people looking for jobs and paying more for goods have voices. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 11:35 AM 27 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said: Incompetence gets you fired by Father Trump. Pretty basic. She wasn't fired to incompetence. She was fired because she allegedly rigged the numbers. That malice. Are you disagreeing with Father? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 11:38 AM 1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said: She wasn't fired to incompetence. She was fired because she allegedly rigged the numbers. That malice. Are you disagreeing with Father? 11 hours ago, Ron_Artest said: That not why she was fired. She was fired because he said her numbers were rigged. He said she gave fake numbers. So if she were off by 15 pct would she have been fired? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 11:43 AM 1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So if she were off by 15 pct would she have been fired? I'm not going to pretend to assume what goes on in the cesspool of Trump's brain but I would say the bls numbers for May and June were initially low that he would cry about it. He never said she was fired because her numbers were off 70%, he said she lied, rigged, faked. He wants good job numbers and if he can't get there via his policies he will just rog the numbers. Either way bls is going to report higher job growth regardless of the reality if he gets his way. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 11:46 AM 2 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said: I'm not going to pretend to assume what goes on in the cesspool of Trump's brain but I would say the bls numbers for May and June were initially low that he would cry about it. He never said she was fired because her numbers were off 70%, he said she lied, rigged, faked. He wants good job numbers and if he can't get there via his policies he will just rog the numbers. Either way bls is going to report higher job growth regardless of the reality if he gets his way. Oh, you don’t want to speculate all of a sudden. How puzzy of you. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 11:49 AM 2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Oh, you don’t want to speculate all of a sudden. How puzzy of you. puzzy. What about you? If she put out terrible.job numbers all along would he just accept them? Or you think he'll do anything to make himself look better? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 11:52 AM 1 minute ago, Ron_Artest said: puzzy. What about you? If she put out terrible.job numbers all along would he just accept them? Or you think he'll do anything to make himself look better? If they were consistent no. 70 pct? Yeah, she needs the boot. So what do you say? Does he fire her at 15 pct? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:16 PM 22 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: If they were consistent no. 70 pct? Yeah, she needs the boot. So what do you say? Does he fire her at 15 pct? If the 15 Pct revisions were to low numbers, yes. If she only revised down 15 Pct to the high numbers, no. He fired her because he didn't like the low numbers. He's gonna fake high numbers. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 12:21 PM 4 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said: If the 15 Pct revisions were to low numbers, yes. If she only revised down 15 Pct to the high numbers, no. He fired her because he didn't like the low numbers. He's gonna fake high numbers. So it was because of the 70 pct. Got it. Go ahead and correct your early statements saying it wasn’t. Thanks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:26 PM 4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: So it was because of the 70 pct. Got it. Go ahead and correct your early statements saying it wasn’t. Thanks. No it wasn't. Trump said it wasn't. You're disagreeing with Trump? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:31 PM If she revised the job number 70% up would she have been fired? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hardcore troubadour 15,517 Posted yesterday at 12:35 PM 3 minutes ago, Ron_Artest said: If she revised the job number 70% up would she have been fired? Nope Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron_Artest 1,593 Posted yesterday at 12:44 PM 9 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said: Nope So then she wasn't fired for being 70% off. Thanks for proving my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5-Points 3,577 Posted yesterday at 12:47 PM 12 hours ago, Ron_Artest said: So you're good with him firing people who don't lie for him? Show me proof that that's why he fired her. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites