POLITICAL THREAD

[YourPublicEnemy]

Someone help me with this double think.

"Trump is a Nazi. Trump is Hitler."

"Trump backs Israel and wants a good relationship with them and is siding against those poor Palestinians."

Curious how you can be a Nazi yet have Israel's back?

Meanwhile the guy that just left office sure as heck did not like Jews or Israel and made sure we knew it every step of the way. He tried to interfere in Israel's election.

Ole sock account up there calling someone an incompetent administration after backing the Obama admin is rich.

Nothing screams competence like
- $20T in debt & spending more than every president combined.
- Leaving borders wide open
- Blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video
- Using the IRS and NSA to target enemies
- Never seeming to know anything until the media does
- Having a Secretary of State get compromised with her server & sell government favors
- Trading dangerous terrorists for a Muslim guy who went A-wall.
- Letting Iran slap us around with the Iran deal and getting bags of cash from us
- Grow the welfare state and food stamps but not do a damn thing for American workers
- Allowing ISIS to rise
- Obamacare. Hell, the website alone was a disaster.

These are just the obvious things. I haven't even tackled how pathetic his cabinet was.

 

[moe_schmoe]

I found the graph on a website that deals with the subject. I also saw some info that I believe would lead you to your thoughts. There are many different ways to look at it, but you chose the one that takes any and all responsibility for the employment rate away from O'bama and place it on circumstances. The population was growing during the times the rate was higher. People were retiring as well. Why don't we just manipulate the numbers and make the rate flat going back 1920?

They threw a fit about alternative facts concerning stupid crowd size, but Obama's economy crumbles if not for alternative facts and an artificial stock market.

 

[krazykats]

The sheer volume of stupid coming out of this White House is staggering.

Couldn't agree more! We still have a few dem seats we need to take over and then it's finally the end of all the stupid.

 

[ymmot31]

Trespassers would be suitable, as would invaders.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

I found the graph on a website that deals with the subject. I also saw some info that I believe would lead you to your thoughts. There are many different ways to look at it, but you chose the one that takes any and all responsibility for the employment rate away from O'bama and place it on circumstances. The population was growing during the times the rate was higher. People were retiring as well. Why don't we just manipulate the numbers and make the rate flat going back 1920?

Not sure why you'd want to do that.

I'm choosing reality. The Great Recession was crushing. It was our biggest economic downturn since the 1920's.

You should expand your graph to show 2000 (1990 the start perhaps?), when the impact of retirement from the baby boomers started emerging. We had significant economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, yet the labor participation rate still decreased.

I'm choosing the same statistics you are though, I'm just understanding the reasons behind the results.

 

[colonelcat78]

Not solely due to early retirement, more by the impact of the great recession............but bolstered by retirees. The impact of the Great Recession (referred to as the 'economic malaise') continued until about 2012.

And, as I stated, economists hold that this will continue to decrease, with or without economic growth, due to the aging population.

Lastly, what is your source? Kind of a shoddy graph completed in Windows 2000.

You realize this came from the bureau of labor statistics

 

[colonelcat78]

Not sure why you'd want to do that.

I'm choosing reality. The Great Recession was crushing. It was our biggest economic downturn since the 1920's.

You should expand your graph to show 2000 (1990 the start perhaps?), when the impact of retirement from the baby boomers started emerging. We had significant economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, yet the labor participation rate still decreased.

I'm choosing the same statistics you are though, I'm just understanding the reasons behind the results.

Here it is from 1990 to present. Your theory is false. Oh, the center of economic research also claims the boomer theory is false and actually calls out the Washington Post among others for running that mythical story.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Here it is from 1990 to present. Your theory is false. Oh, the center of economic research also claims the boomer theory is false and actually calls out the Washington Post among others for running that mythical story.

They've made a habit of this lately. Several blatantly false stories pimped for hits, no retractions, and buried apologies and/or editor's notes.

 

[ymmot31]

Not sure why you'd want to do that.

I'm choosing reality. The Great Recession was crushing. It was our biggest economic downturn since the 1920's.

You should expand your graph to show 2000 (1990 the start perhaps?), when the impact of retirement from the baby boomers started emerging. We had significant economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, yet the labor participation rate still decreased.

I'm choosing the same statistics you are though, I'm just understanding the reasons behind the results.

No, I don't believe you are understanding all the reasons. Could be you know full well that if O'bama's economy was such a great success, that graph would have had a totally different look. But I don't think you understand how retirees affect the rate.

 

[moe_schmoe]

I'm choosing the same statistics you are though, I'm just understanding the reasons behind the results.

Austan Goolsbee, is that you?

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

You realize this came from the bureau of labor statistics

^Thanks. Makes sense, I think they're just using DOS there. '

Now, let's take a look at 2002 through 2007, when our economy was averaging 4-5% GDP growth. The labor participation rate is.......decreasing.

You all should understand this so when the duplicitous partisans on the left attack the current WH with the same stats over the next 4 years.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

No, I don't believe you are understanding all the reasons. Could be you know full well that if O'bama's economy was such a great success, that graph would have had a totally different look. But I don't think you understand how retirees affect the rate.

I'm confident I have a much better understanding than you, or most on here.

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

Here it is from 1990 to present. Your theory is false. Oh, the center of economic research also claims the boomer theory is false and actually calls out the Washington Post among others for running that mythical story.

If the Center for Economic Research [sic] calls out the WaPo, please post it. I cannot find the link.

Also, baby boomers were in their mid 40's in the early 90's. Not sure why that time frame is relevant.

 

[colonelcat78]

^Thanks. Makes sense, I think they're just using DOS there. '

Now, let's take a look at 2002 through 2007, when our economy was averaging 4-5% GDP growth. The labor participation rate is.......decreasing.

You all should understand this so when the duplicitous partisans on the left attack the current WH with the same stats over the next 4 years.

Yes, decreasing less than .01%. You can select identical trends across the timeline. You're juxtaposing convenient facts, rather than honestly exploring causality versus association.

 

[colonelcat78]

If the Center for Economic Research [sic] calls out the WaPo, please post it. I cannot find the link.

Also, baby boomers were in their mid 40's in the early 90's. Not sure why that time frame is relevant.

You suggested starting the graph from 1990. I already provided you the link in a prior response to you a few pages back.

 

[colonelcat78]

If the Center for Economic Research [sic] calls out the WaPo, please post it. I cannot find the link.

Also, baby boomers were in their mid 40's in the early 90's. Not sure why that time frame is relevant.

Here is the link again to the CEPR article

 

[Mime-Is-Money]

You suggested starting the graph from 1990. I already provided you the link in a prior response to you a few pages back.

I thought you meant that we have to take increase of 1990s into consideration, which we should not because baby boomers were still eligible in work force. I suggested starting the graph at 1990 to see the change from 2000 beyond.

Will be back later to respond. Taking little one to baby mamas work.

 

[ram1955]

Again...you fail to do any critical thinking...
No illegal is here living off of government assistance alone. They are here to work. Some have children, many/most that are US citizens that attend schools. Those people have to live somewhere. Nowhere are they going to live for free.
If mom and dad can't provide a place to live then their children aren't going to be attending school.



Wall or no wall, as long as they are able to obtain employment here the border will be a revolving door. 10s of thousands of people cross the border every day, that isn't going to stop.

The number of employers of illegals is a much, much smaller number than the number of illegals...and they are much easier to find.
.

I understand what you say, so I'll add to my position: Let's penalize employers of illegals IF they are doing something illegal. Still that does not address the FACT that illegal aliens are, in fact, illegal and need to be removed from our country.

 

[ukalumni00]

I have been off for months due to a new baby and an occupational transition to a new organization. Thanks for the warm welcome back.

In all seriousness, I'll prolly disappear next week, just have a few down days.

Congrats on the newborn! Nothing more important than that.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

My mom, a converted Trump supporter, thinks he's probably a one term president.

I don't but obviously I'm afraid of that. What do you all think? Four years is a long time.

 

[morgousky]

Which George Bush? I'd go H Clinton for me, followed very closely by GHWB, then very closely by GWB. If DT were running against Nixon's corpse I'd vote for the latter. I genuinely loathe DT as a human being, have for a while.

George W.

 

[AustinTXCat]

I have been off for months due to a new baby and an occupational transition to a new organization. Thanks for the warm welcome back.

In all seriousness, I'll prolly disappear next week, just have a few down days.

Congratulations on your new addition and welcome back.

 

[Willy4UK]

Sheeeeeit. I'm thinking half-term myself.

Shit, I'm thinking you ******* **** ****** you ******** *********

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

I think I'll give this a read.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Shit, I'm thinking you ******* **** ****** you ******** *********

Give mean an F.

 

[screwduke1]

My mom, a converted Trump supporter, thinks he's probably a one term president.

I don't but obviously I'm afraid of that. What do you all think? Four years is a long time.

If Trumps entire term is anything like his first week, a democrat will have a tough time beating him. Because they'll look ridiculous trying to say what hes doing is bad.

 

[Willy4UK]

If Trumps entire term is anything like his first week, a democrat will have a tough time beating him. Because they'll look ridiculous trying to say what hes doing is bad.

I wish Trump would climb over the "Wall" that Obama had built around his new $5.3 million house (on a $400K salary lol) in a subdivision that is 88% white and then break into his home and beat him with a pillow case full of rocks and bars of hotel soap.

 

[PhattyJ4UK]

I thought you meant that we have to take increase of 1990s into consideration, which we should not because baby boomers were still eligible in work force. I suggested starting the graph at 1990 to see the change from 2000 beyond.

Will be back later to respond. Taking little one to baby mamas work.

Hmm posted at 930pm


You really shouldn't take young ones into strip clubs. Especially crap truck stop ones.

 

[colonelcat78]

I thought you meant that we have to take increase of 1990s into consideration, which we should not because baby boomers were still eligible in work force. I suggested starting the graph at 1990 to see the change from 2000 beyond.

Will be back later to respond. Taking little one to baby mamas work.

Why not go further back than 1990? I'd consider reflecting on the data from 1970 to present. By doing this you have a solid sample size (years) to observe it's normality (normal distribution). With the exception of the late seventies and 2008 - 2016 (which both show out of control and displays significance) all other data is relative and normally distributed including your comments on 2002- 07. There are small trends of increases and decreases; however, they still remain consistent.

 

[moe_schmoe]

Democrats hold lessons on how to talk to real people

 

[moe_schmoe]

Damn, this dude went off lol. Hes not wrong though.

View embedded media

Good thing LaBeouf wasn't anywhere in sight. Those dudes were fired up and ready to wreck whatever. I'm not so sure they wouldn't have completely lost it and got gay on his ass.

 

[bigbluefattycat]

I wish Trump would climb over the "Wall" that Obama had built around his new $5.3 million house (on a $400K salary lol) in a subdivision that is 88% white and then break into his home and beat him with a pillow case full of rocks and bars of hotel soap.

No I don't believe he should be violent...but 2 Russian hookers and a golden shower would be all time chuck norris troll job.

 

[krazykats]

Just really dug into some of Soros history and financial beliefs which lead the way to ALL his political beliefs. What a nutcase! I mean if you don't know him then read up and realize his whole 1 world ideas are only destroyed by communism and facism thought will explain a lot of what is going on these days.

Kind of scary TBH since we were so close to having his puppets finish the charge!

 

[AustinTXCat]

Isn't the 'E' word forbidden among your kind?

My kind? Really?

Help! Mister Bill. Mister Bill. What have we here?

 

[screwduke1]

Windy is a perfect example of why America hates liberals.

 

[OSOK]

January 27, 2017 till January 27, 2021; four years.

100 million American's will DIE. Maybe more.

 

[YourPublicEnemy]

I saw on the news some white liberal cuck talking about how it was unconstitutional to discriminate against refugees for their religion.

Um, unconstitutional? These are not citizens. We are not required to take anyone in nor is tbere anything that tells us we can't pick and choose who to let in this country.

Ask yourselves this, why are leftists so eager to bring in uneducated, low-skilled Muslims from terrorist spots where vetting is impossible? Why do leftists want to bring in so many third world types/Mexicans & then not want voter ID laws?

These are the same people who celebrate and support killing your baby. They aren't the caring type. So why is it important? Hmm

 

[morgousky]

January 27, 2017 till January 27, 2021; four years.

100 million American's will DIE. Maybe more.

Madonna? That you?

 

[moe_schmoe]

I saw on the news some white liberal cuck talking

When defending refugees from Syria I saw one on CNN say "Well, American born citizens commit more crime in the United States than refugees."

He was serious as hell, too. You could tell he thought it was his smack down moment, like he really proved all of our hesitations regarding Syrian refugees wrong.

 

[screwduke1]

January 27, 2017 till January 27, 2021; four years.

100 million American's will DIE. Maybe more.

Please do tell us how this will happen.