Who gets the credit then?
And the graph is just highlighting the numbers of each president.. hard to dispute the numbers that Obama did better than Trump.
Let’s not forget the economies both inherited at the start of their terms … even with drawing a short straw Obama dunked on Trumps numbers.
Came to post this. So the lamestream media would go so far as to make up negative bullshit "anonymous" stories about Trump which always went in one way, yet they go even more full-retard by protecting their dear friends like what this old hag did with RBG and 99% of the media did with Hunter Biden right before the election...
Look, I’m no anti-vax person, but that was a HUGE deflection by her. Did she ever answer the question? I’ll watch it again, but I don’t think she did. I know that’s a very politician thing to do, but that was especially bad.
I wonder if anyone is going to tell her that she's a press secretary.
You're barking up the wrong tree. There are still morons that are trying to blame the covid economic collapse on Trump. A lot of these same people constantly advocate for the benefits of higher government spending apparently not realizing that the economy they're blaming on Trump correlates with his reckless spending of 2020.
Fair deal!
When you have a 50% pull back, the gains afterwards aren't really gains. It's recovery.
The crash wasn't Obama's fault. Just like the Covid collapse wasn't Trumps. Both have tooted their own horn on the market "gains" under their watch but it's mostly spin-doctor bullshit when it's following a huge sell off.
Last edited:
Displacement.
It's a dumb comment assuming it's a slight dig at climate change, but he's not wrong.
Someone else’s response…
As good as no rise at all. Still for the sake of finding out why, lets work it out;
As of 2009 estimate, the world merchant fleet capacity was about 1.192 trillion mt dwt. Thanks to recession in the industry, there has been considerable scrapping so the fleet expansion has not been significant since then.
Still lets calculate the displacement for 1.2 trillion mt
For average sea water density 1025kg/m^3, this works out to be 1.17 trillion cubic meters of water. The surface area covered by ocean is around 3.6E14 squaremeters. (a very rough estimate, from Wikipedia).
Based on above data, the rise in sea level assuming uniform rise over the entire surface comes to just a fraction of a millimeter.
The effect of other ships (warships, private/fishing boats etc) are negligible compared to the merchant fleet size.
Now, some considerations:
With each millimeter rise in sea level, the surface area increases making it difficult to predict.
Sea level rise is not uniform across the earth's surface. Blame ocean currents, Coriolis force and the way oceans are connected. Another reason sea level rises is that oceans are warming up, and this heating is not uniform. Warmer ocean surface is at a higher level than colder ones.
Sea level from warming and melting glaciers comes to barely a millimeter to more than a centimeter in different locations around the world. So effect of ship's displacement is negligible.
I love that someone broke it down. And as I said, he's not wrong. A fraction of a millimeter is negligible, but it is something.
Loaded ship vs empty ship would displace a different amount of water as well, so this dude's math is probably off a bit unless he looked at every floating ship's freight documents.