DJIA

[Rock98Dog]

January 20, 2017
19,732

January 20, 2021
30,931

Difference 11,199, or 56.75%

January 20, 2021
30,931

Now
39,314

Difference 8,383, or 27.11%

For Biden to match Trump the DJIA needs to be 48,484 on January 20, 2025. Somehow though Trump was bad for the stock market while Biden is better according to Rifle. The market needs to go up more in 6 months than it has in 42 months.

 

[riflearm2]

Somehow though Trump was bad for the stock market while Biden is better according to Rifle.

Can you share where I said that? You can't share that, because I never said that.

Why must you deplorables constantly resort to blatant lies?

 

[Rock98Dog]

You claimed that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts led to anemic, flat market. You were wrong, but as usual, not enough of a man to admit it.

 

[riflearm2]

You claimed that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts led to anemic, flat market.

Yes, after its implementation and for the next 18 months. So why did you lie and claim that I said something entirely different from that?

You were wrong, but as usual, not enough of a man to admit it.

What I said was entirely accurate.

Now, let's look at what you said:

Somehow though Trump was bad for the stock market while Biden is better according to Rifle.

Can you show where I said that or were you lying again? @KyMUfan and @19MU88 , since you both supported Banker's fabricated post, perhaps one of you two want to see where I made the statement quoted above that he claimed I made.

 

[Rock98Dog]

I know you have a certain level of financial illiteracy, after all you thought a reverse stock split was a good thing, but the market is a long term investment vehicle. People in the market from 1/20/17 through 1/20/21 made a hell of a lot more money than people that have been invested beginning 1/20/21 till now.

When you factor in inflation, where Trump was net 51% and Biden is only net 7%, it is even more obvious.

To complain that there was a flat spot in Trump’s outstanding growth curve is simply stupid. It’s being mad at a guy hitting .400 for the season when he goes 0-4 one game.

 

[WV-FAN]

To complain that there was a flat spot in Trump’s outstanding growth curve is simply stupid. It’s being mad at a guy hitting .400 for the season when he goes 0-4 one game.

back, back, back . . . outta here, home run!!!!

 

[19MU88]

back, back, back . . . outta here, home run!!!!

What are the odds baldy comes back for more. Jesus. He should take a break.

 

[WV-FAN]

What are the odds baldy comes back for more. Jesus. He should take a break.

probly better than the odds of you eventually making a substantive post.

 

[riflearm2]

People in the market from 1/20/17 through 1/20/21 made a hell of a lot more money than people that have been invested beginning 1/20/21 till now.

What does any of that have to do with what I posted and what you incorrectly claimed I posted?

When you factor in inflation, where Trump was net 51% and Biden is only net 7%, it is even more obvious.

"BUT BIDENNNNN!!!!!" Again, what the fvck does that have to do with what the discussion was?

Have you learned what a straw man is yet since you embarrassingly had it wrong at week or two ago on the main board?

To complain that there was a flat spot in Trump’s outstanding growth curve is simply stupid. It’s being mad at a guy hitting .400 for the season when he goes 0-4 one game.

A "flat spot"? That "flat spot" lasted nearly 50% of his tenure.

Your analogy isn't accurate. A normal MLB starter gets 600 at bats in a season. What trump did would be like a player hitting .400 for the first 225 at bats of his career and then hitting .200 for the next 225 at bats. At that point, he would have been sent down to the minors.

Are you, @KyMUfan , and @19MU88 going to keep hiding from your false claim about what I said? My last post called you out on it, but you didn't get the message, because you tried comparing them again in your last post.

So let's try this again for you stoogies: Can any of you show my comment to prove the below statement from the numerically challenged banker or will you keep cowardly hiding?

Somehow though Trump was bad for the stock market while Biden is better according to Rifle.

 

[riflearm2]

probly better than the odds of you eventually making a substantive post.

Jesus. Raleigh's comments about him were bad. Now, you? Ever since Middle Class Murox left, there has been a lack of jizz for 1988 to gargle, so has been swapping spit with Crispy Lips and Serg as much as possible, since they are the only ones at his intellectual level. But considering two of the leaders of his team have publicly blasted him, let's see if he just goes back to liking posts like he did his first few years on here.

 

[Rock98Dog]

So 18 is almost half of 48?

The comparison to Biden is because the election is a binary choice and you are voting for the guy that has hurt your wallet and investments compared to Trump.

 

[19MU88]

Jesus. Raleigh's comments about him were bad. Now, you? Ever since Middle Class Murox left, there has been a lack of jizz for 1988 to gargle, so has been swapping spit with Crispy Lips and Serg as much as possible, since they are the only ones at his intellectual level. But considering two of the leaders of his team have publicly blasted him, let's see if he just goes back to liking posts like he did his first few years on here.

 

[raleighherdfan]

A "flat spot"? That "flat spot" lasted nearly 50% of his tenure.

😂😂😂

 

[riflearm2]

So 18 is almost half of 48?

Yes, 75% there is pretty close, so "almost" is accurate. If you were driving from Marshall's campus to Kroger in Proctorville, and you got halfway across the East Huntington Bridge, would it be accurate if you said you were "almost" to your destination? Of course it would, even though you were 75% of the way there.

The comparison to Biden is because the election is a binary choice and you are voting for the guy that has hurt your wallet and investments compared to Trump.

I addressed this, I believe to a question you asked, within the last month or so. I have never voted, so your comment about my voting for Biden is inaccurate. It's another failed attempt by you and another instance of "BUT BIDENNNN!!!!" by you deplorables.

So why do you constantly have to fabricate things?

😂😂😂

What I said is accurate, piece of shit human.

 

[MichiganHerd]

I'm not going to step in this time and attempt to rescue rifle like I did back during the covid discussion surrounding the New Orleans parishes thing.

 

[riflearm2]

I'm not going to step in this time and attempt to rescue rifle like I did back during the covid discussion surrounding the New Orleans parishes thing.

I remember that one well. All three of your attempts in that thread were failures. You had to resort to arguing that the Covid numbers in Louisiana were due to people from one parish going to socialize with people in another parish, thus spreading it there.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Yes, 75% there is pretty close, so "almost" is accurate. If you were driving from Marshall's campus to Kroger in Proctorville, and you got halfway across the East Huntington Bridge, would it be accurate if you said you were "almost" to your destination? Of course it would, even though you were 75% of the way there.

I addressed this, I believe to a question you asked, within the last month or so. I have never voted, so your comment about my voting for Biden is inaccurate. It's another failed attempt by you and another instance of "BUT BIDENNNN!!!!" by you deplorables.

So why do you constantly have to fabricate things?


What I said is accurate, piece of shit human.

😂😂😂

 

[Rock98Dog]

Yes, 75% there is pretty close, so "almost" is accurate. If you were driving from Marshall's campus to Kroger in Proctorville, and you got halfway across the East Huntington Bridge, would it be accurate if you said you were "almost" to your destination? Of course it would, even though you were 75% of the way there.

I addressed this, I believe to a question you asked, within the last month or so. I have never voted, so your comment about my voting for Biden is inaccurate. It's another failed attempt by you and another instance of "BUT BIDENNNN!!!!" by you deplorables.

So why do you constantly have to fabricate things?


What I said is accurate, piece of shit human.

18 is as close to 24 as it is to 12, so it’s as close to 25% of the term as it is to 50%. If you were driving from California to New York would you consider yourself half way their if you were still in Colorado?

You have really fallen off a cliff intellectually. This, the “Even in the worst parts” debacle, it’s just bad. I sincerely hope you fully recover from your accident.

 

[riflearm2]

18 is as close to 24 as it is to 12, so it’s as close to 25% of the term as it is to 50%.

Why do you do this to yourself? You’ve fvcked up basic math and statistical analysis countless times for countless years, yet you still try.

No, 18 is not “as close to 25% of the term as it is to 50%” like you said. It’s as close to 100% as it is to 50%. Jesus. It’s late on the East Coast. I wish I could blame it on that, but you’ve struggled with numbers so much that it’s hard to pass blame on anything.

. . . would you consider yourself half way their if you were still in Colorado?

You have really fallen off a cliff intellectually.

I think you mean “there.” But hey, at least you knew how to spell “intellectually” even if you don’t practice it yourself.

Even Fever is embarrassed for you at this point.

 

[riflearm2]

18 is as close to 24 as it is to 12, so it’s as close to 25% of the term as it is to 50%. If you were driving from California to New York would you consider yourself half way their if you were still in Colorado?

You have really fallen off a cliff intellectually. This, the “Even in the worst parts” debacle, it’s just bad. I sincerely hope you fully recover from your accident.

Since the numerically challenged banker doesn't want to face this thread, do any of you other deplorables want to attempt to justify his math? Of course, you all have the cumulative IQ of Huff's career win total, so you all will also avoid answering.

 

[raleighherdfan]

So what we've learned with Rifle's stellar statistical analysis is that 75% of Trump's term (30 of 48 months), the Dow moved higher. Thank you.

 

[riflearm2]

So what we've learned with Rifle's stellar statistical analysis is that 75% of Trump's term (30 of 48 months), the Dow moved higher. Thank you.

No, your ability at statistical analysis is as poor as the numerically challenged Banker's is.

What I claimed was that trump's TCJA flatlined the DOW for 18 months, which it did. Regardless of any movement prior to its start, if something is working as planned, the DOW would continue to grow unless a storm was on the horizon. Just because the DOW increased during his entire term yet was flatlined for 18 months doesn't mean it was moving higher the other 30 months. That's a horrendous position you have taken based on what you stated.

Looks like you are too cowardly to defend Banker's math, too?

 

[raleighherdfan]

Just because the DOW increased during his entire term yet was flatlined for 18 months doesn't mean it was moving higher the other 30 months.

🤣 🤣 🤣 Except for the fact, that's exactly what it did. I thought you claimed to follow the Dow trends.

I dont need to defend Bankers math. We read your ignorance and laugh. Out of 48 months in office, the only period of time the market didn't rise was the 18 months. It rose into that consolidation period and the last full year of his presidency based and moved 7800 pts higher.

 

[riflearm2]

🤣 🤣 🤣 Except for the fact, that's exactly what it did. I thought you claimed to follow the Dow trends.

That's irrelevant to the foolishness of what you posted:

So what we've learned with Rifle's stellar statistical analysis is that 75% of Trump's term (30 of 48 months), the Dow moved higher. Thank you.

No, you didn't learn that from what I said. If that is what you gained from what I posted, you're making wildly foolish assumptions. Just because the DOW is flat for 18 months yet increased over 48 months doesn't mean that the other 30 months that it isn't flat was actually increasing.

Do I need to dumb that down more for you?

I dont need to defend Bankers math.

You can't, because 1) you lack intelligence and 2) his attempt at math is incorrect.

Out of 48 months in office, the only period of time the market didn't rise was the 18 months. It rose into that consolidation period and the last full year of his presidency based and moved 7800 pts higher.

None of that has absolutely anything to do with what I posted originally nor in this thread.

 

[MichiganHerd]

rifle really struggles when it comes to financial related numbers.

Everybody saw me warn him a few times about entering these types of fray.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Just because the DOW is flat for 18 months yet increased over 48 months doesn't mean that the other 30 months that it isn't flat was actually increasing.

Actually, after going back and looking closer at the charts, the markets moved higher/increased 34 months. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. In fact, the argument to be made is that ALMOST all of Trumps term, markets moved higher.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

If you were driving from California to New York would you consider yourself half way their if you were still in Colorado?

You would be more than halfway there. The midpoint would be in Nebraska.

 

[raleighherdfan]

You would be more than halfway there. The midpoint would be in Nebraska.

So Colorado isn't halfway across the country.

 

[Rock98Dog]

The only thing worse than being wrong is being wrong, but being too stupid to grasp the simply concepts that prove you are wrong.

Your claim - the market was flat for nearly half of Trump’s term.

You claim that 18 of 48 is nearly half, which requires no less than a 33% increase in the number of months to be correct. That’s like scoring a 78% on a test and saying you almost got 100%. It’s a stupid and asinine claim.

I pointed out that 18 is equal distance from 12 and 24. Under your use of math I can then claim that the market was only flat about 25% of Trump’s term and be just as correct as your claim of 50%.

Ignoring the fact that it’s stupid to cherry pick a meaningless short time period, like saying the market was up 5,000 points on Monday, but was flat the next 4 days means it was a bad week, gross exaggerations based on trying to make the meaningless, cherry picked, time period seem more substantial is just retarded.

I really hope you have someone handle your money and investments.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

So Colorado isn't halfway across the country.

Sorta. It's closer to halfway than most of Iowa and all of Utah.

I guess it depends on where you are spending the night, because who the hell could drive that trip nonstop without amphetamines. That's what I consider halfway there, time and not miles.

Fun fact: the geographic centerpoint of the lower 48 is near Lebanon KS. Which is near the Nebraska border. There's a monument there for it. This is also about 25 miles from the World's Largest Ball of Twine in Cawker City. This is the kind of dumb shit I seek out on road trips.

 

[riflearm2]

The only thing worse than being wrong is being wrong, but being too stupid to grasp the simply concepts that prove you are wrong.

Your claim - the market was flat for nearly half of Trump’s term.

You claim that 18 of 48 is nearly half, which requires no less than a 33% increase in the number of months to be correct. That’s like scoring a 78% on a test and saying you almost got 100%. It’s a stupid and asinine claim.

I pointed out that 18 is equal distance from 12 and 24. Under your use of math I can then claim that the market was only flat about 25% of Trump’s term and be just as correct as your claim of 50%.

Ignoring the fact that it’s stupid to cherry pick a meaningless short time period, like saying the market was up 5,000 points on Monday, but was flat the next 4 days means it was a bad week, gross exaggerations based on trying to make the meaningless, cherry picked, time period seem more substantial is just retarded.

I really hope you have someone handle your money and investments.

That's a lot of words for not explaining this incorrect math. Will you try explaining again or will you admit that your math is wrong?

18 is as close to 24 as it is to 12, so it’s as close to 25% of the term as it is to 50%.

No. My comment, which you argued and was the entire point of this discussion, was that the flat spot lasted nearly 50% of his term. You disputed that it last nearly 50% of his term, because you claim that 18 months is not close to 24 months.

50% of his term is 24 months. Yes, 18 out of 24 is as close as 12 is to 18, but your next point, inexplicably, jumped to using a baseline of 48 months instead of the original 24 months ("nearly 50% of his term") which is what the point in contention was.

Again, the entire comment that you disputed was my comment that nearly half of trump's tenure was marked by a flat DOW. Half of his tenure is 24 months. 18 months it was flat. You somehow, inexplicably and making no sense, then tried looking at 48 months instead of the disputed 24 month timeline.

Your argument didn't align. You got confused. It happens . . . especially with you start using numbers.

Now, will you admit that you screwed up or should I keep boosting recently inactive threads (straw man, etc.) where you messed up to further embarrass you until you admit it?

 

[riflearm2]

Actually, after going back and looking closer at the charts, the markets moved higher/increased 34 months. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. In fact, the argument to be made is that ALMOST all of Trumps term, markets moved higher.

Welp, now you've done it. You just blew the numerically challenged banker's initial argument to shreds.

He claimed that 18 isn't anywhere close to 24 (75%). Yet now you're saying 34 is almost all of 48 (less than 71%). Doh!

You morons should set up a private chat, align your arguments, then come back united, because right now, you're arguing against the point of each other.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Welp, now you've done it. You just blew the numerically challenged banker's initial argument to shreds.

He claimed that 18 isn't anywhere close to 24 (75%). Yet now you're saying 34 is almost all of 48 (less than 71%). Doh!

You morons should set up a private chat, align your arguments, then come back united, because right now, you're arguing against the point of each other.

No. His initial argument was that 18 of 48 isn’t 50%. It isn’t.

So what you’re now seeing is that 71% (almost all) of Trumps time in office the Dow trended higher. Thanks for coming to our side of the discussion.

 

[raleighherdfan]

Sorta. It's closer to halfway than most of Iowa and all of Utah.

But the analogy wasn’t talking about Iowa or Utah. Nebraska which is halfway between Ca and NY is also farther east than Colorado.

 

[riflearm2]

No. His initial argument was that 18 of 48 isn’t 50%. It isn’t.

That wasn't his argument. His argument was that 18 wasn't close/near to 24 (half), which was my claim. So if 75% of the way isn't close or near, then your claim that 71% is "almost all" of something definitely can't be valid based on his objection to my claim.

You're now arguing against his argument, which is awesome.

 

[raleighherdfan]

That wasn't his argument. His argument was that 18 wasn't close/near to 24 (half), which was my claim. So if 75% of the way isn't close or near, then your claim that 71% is "almost all" of something definitely can't be valid based on his objection to my claim.

You're now arguing against his argument, which is awesome.

nope. His first post was asking you if 18 was half of 48. In other words mocking your assertion that half of trumps tenure the market was flat. And what we’ve learned is that a majority of Trumps tenure we experienced a positive Dow.

 

[riflearm2]

nope. His first post was asking you if 18 was half of 48. In other words mocking your assertion that half of trumps tenure the market was flat.

So if he claims that 18 is not nearly half of 48, how do you argue that 34 of 48 is "almost all," moron? 18 is closer to 24 than 34 is to 48. As I have repeatedly said, you're arguing against his position to an even greater extent than what he is arguing against my comment.

Doh!

 

[raleighherdfan]

So if he claims that 18 is not nearly half of 48, how do you argue that 34 of 48 is "almost all," moron? 18 is closer to 24 than 34 is to 48.

Seriously. Who is the moron here. This is why you’re laughed at and mocked.

Now you’re trying to argue that 34 of 48 isn’t a majority and significantly greater % than 18 of 48? Hilarious.

 

[Rock98Dog]

You’re just a joke and not worth it. Why debate with someone incapable of self assessment and honesty? 18 is mathematically not near half of 48. If you can’t admit that simply, basic, fact then there’s just no hope for you.

It’s pathetic that you just can’t simply say, sorry, I should have said “close to 40%”, which is still stretching it in your favor. I mean at least round to the nearest 10. 37.5 just simply isn’t close to half of 100 by any definition of any half way intelligent person.

 

[riflearm2]

Seriously. Who is the moron here.

You are, and even Banker won’t argue that. Let’s see how:

Now you’re trying to argue that 34 of 48 isn’t a majority and significantly greater % than 18 of 48? Hilarious.

Nope. Not what I’m arguing. Banker’s argument is that 18 isn’t close to 24 (half of trump’s term, which was my claim). So if 18 isn’t close to 24 according to banker, then your argument that 34 is “almost all” of 48 disputes banker’s stance to an even greater degree.

Your argument that 34 is “almost all” of 48 directly contradicts his claim that 18 is not near 24.

You lose. You’re a moron.

You’re just a joke and not worth it. Why debate with someone incapable of self assessment and honesty? 18 is mathematically not near half of 48. If you can’t admit that simply, basic, fact then there’s just no hope for you.

It’s pathetic that you just can’t simply say, sorry, I should have said “close to 40%”, which is still stretching it in your favor. I mean at least round to the nearest 10. 37.5 just simply isn’t close to half of 100 by any definition of any half way intelligent person.

Care to provide your thoughts on ITT’s multiple claims that 34 is “almost all” of 38?