[paraclete]

In general, yes. But you would have to define bullying. When Russia invaded the Crimea, sanctions were placed against Russia. That was the correct thing to do, short of war. I note that Trump, in effect, opposed the sanctions and wanted Russia to be allowed back in the economic group.

Obviously what has been experienced here has not been reported in the US although other nations such as France stand with us. What they have done over months is hold up shipments of coal and iron ore, impose restrictive tariffs on agricultural products and restrict imports of Australian products, prevent travel by students, actively discourage tourism and student enrolments, publish obnoxious articles and depictions of Australian troops, challenge our sovereign right to regulate investment and prohibit reordering of our exports

This has nothing to do with Russia or any sanctions by Australia on China. It has to do with our stand against Chinese esponage and expansion in the South China Sea

[Athos]

Obviously what has been experienced here has not been reported in the US although other nations such as France stand with us. What they have done over months is hold up shipments of coal and iron ore, impose restrictive tariffs on agricultural products and restrict imports of Australian products, prevent travel by students, actively discourage tourism and student enrolments, publish obnoxious articles and depictions of Australian troops, challenge our sovereign right to regulate investment and prohibit reordering of our exports

This has nothing to do with Russia or any sanctions by Australia on China. It has to do with our stand against Chinese esponage and expansion in the South China Sea

I didn't know about any of that - I'm not aware of everything going on world-wide. But I agree it's very serious and I take it that the Chinese are retaliating for your exposure of their espionage and their expansion in the South Sea.

All I can say at the moment is that the new administration will have to reveal their policies vis-a-vis China. Recently, Biden has taken a hard line but that hasn't always been so. Wait and see.

[paraclete]

I didn't know about any of that - I'm not aware of everything going on world-wide. But I agree it's very serious and I take it that the Chinese are retaliating for your exposure of their espionage and their expansion in the South Sea.

All I can say at the moment is that the new administration will have to reveal their policies vis-a-vis China. Recently, Biden has taken a hard line but that hasn't always been so. Wait and see.

There is a compensation, I suppose, I'll have lobster for Christmas dinner, they were wasted on the chinese anyway
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-...-woes/12972960

[jlisenbe]

JB came out with the Harris/Biden plan for COVID control yesterday. The three steps were trying to get everyone to wear a mask, getting 100 mil people vaccinated with the Trump vaccine, and reopening schools. How innovative!!!

other nations such as France stand with us.

I'm sure that's very reassuring.

[talaniman]

JB came out with the Harris/Biden plan for COVID control yesterday. The three steps were trying to get everyone to wear a mask, getting 100 mil people vaccinated with the Trump vaccine, and reopening schools. How innovative!!

Dude, it ain't the plan, it's the application and implementation. A plan is just a piece of paper or idea. Of course even Joe cannot make 100 million doses magically appear no more than the dufus could.

[jlisenbe]

Dude, it ain't the plan

I guess not, and especially when the plan is, "Come on, man. Let's just keep doing exactly what we've been doing, but I'll just say it was my idea."

We both know what the plan is. The plan is to just blame it all on someone else. It'll be the Obama strategy.

[talaniman]

I guess not, and especially when the plan is, "Come on, man. Let's just keep doing exactly what we've been doing, but I'll just say it was my idea."

We both know what the plan is. The plan is to just blame it all on someone else. It'll be the Obama strategy.

You let the dufus do it and get away with it, now you want that to stop because it's so unfair. GROSS hypocrisy!

[jlisenbe]

I did? When?

[talaniman]

Figure it out yet?

[jlisenbe]

No, and plainly you haven't either.

[talaniman]

Strange, all the semantic gymnastics to make sure the dufus gets credit for polishing the door knobs of a new house I would have thought you knew exactly what I was talking about.

Maybe it's a bit soon to give Joe the credit for anything but whooping the dufus's a$$, but it's kind of early to predict who he'll blame, even though everybody else has already.

[jlisenbe]

Strange, all the semantic gymnastics to make sure the dufus gets credit for polishing the door knobs of a new house I would have thought you knew exactly what I was talking about.

A rambling discourse does not amount to an answer.

I would suggest that you get a head start on assembling the excuses for Harris/Biden. You are going to need them. We will not see record low unemployment figures, I don't think.

[Wondergirl]

We will not see record low unemployment figures, I don't think.

If we do, it will certainly be (according to you) because of all the hard work that Trump and his administration did and successes that Biden merely inherited.

[jlisenbe]

If we do, it will certainly be (according to you) because of all the hard work that Trump and his administration did and successes that Biden merely inherited.

So you think I will imitate what you guys have consistently done with Trump?

[Wondergirl]

So you think I will imitate what you guys have consistently done with Trump?

Check what happened with employment under W. Then see what happened during the next eight years.

[jlisenbe]

Thank you for verifying my point.

Still, I checked. Unemployment under GW was nearly always under 6% with the exception of ten or so months, and it averaged 5.3%. Unemployment under your hero was OVER 6% for 5 1/2 of his eight years and averaged 7.5%. And that was with a doubling of the national debt. Average under Trump was 4.8%.

So Mr. Obama DOUBLED the national debt, yet had the slowest recovery from a recession in a hundred years.

Sound about right? I am beyond amazed that you would ask that question without first finding the answer. You sure set yourself up. Don't you remember that Google is your friend? 8D

https://historyinpieces.com/research...ates-president

[Wondergirl]

FactCheck.org says the unemployment figure in 2017 was 4.7%

"...the Obama years, which began in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and ended with the highest level of household income ever recorded."

"The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.

• Average weekly earnings for all workers were up 4.2 percent after inflation. The gain was 3.7 percent for just production and nonsupervisory employees.
• After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.
• The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.
• The federal debt owed to the public rose 128 percent. Deficits were rising as Obama departed.
• Home prices rose 20 percent. But the home ownership rate hit the lowest point in half a century.
• Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.
• Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.
• Production of handguns rose 207 percent, to a record level.
• The murder rate dropped to the lowest on record in 2014, then rose and finished at the same rate as when Obama took office."
• https://www.factcheck.org/2017/09/obamas-final-numbers/

[jlisenbe]

FactCheck.org says the unemployment figure in 2017 was 4.7%

So?

"...the Obama years, which began in the middle of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression,

There is no evidence to support that idea. The economy in 79 was worse by far.

ended with the highest level of household income ever recorded."

What do you think of this?

2015	$53,600.00
2016	$56,025.00
2017	$58,849.00
2018	$60,810.00
2019	$63,030.00
2020	$68,400.00

"The economy gained a net 11.6 million jobs. The unemployment rate dropped to below the historical norm.

And dropped to historic lows under Trump.

• After-tax corporate profits also set records, as did stock prices. The S&P 500 index rose 166 percent.

• The Stock Market did do well.

• The number of people lacking health insurance dropped by 15 million. Premiums rose, but more slowly than before.

  Thanks to a doubling of the national debt, and bear in mind that Obama told us that premiums would FALL.

• Illegal immigration declined: The Border Patrol caught 35 percent fewer people trying to get into the U.S. from Mexico.

  Thank you Mr. Trump.

• Wind and solar power increased 369 percent. Coal production declined 38 percent. Carbon emissions from burning fossil fuel dropped 11 percent.

  whoopee

[Wondergirl]

Where was Trump between 2008 and 2016? You were *itching about Obama's poor numbers (that weren't poor). Trump wasn't in the picture yet.

[jlisenbe]

I wasn't complaining about anything. You asked this. "Check what happened with employment under W. Then see what happened during the next eight years." I did as you suggested. I did not say Obama's numbers were poor. You inferred that, correctly I think, from the data I gave you. If you don't want it, then don't ask for it.

Where was Trump between 2008 and 2016?

OK. Trump wasn't in the picture when Obama's unemployment average was much higher than Trump's was. I would agree with that.