Graf....I may be mistaken.... He acts like you know who...he is white and all of you are guilty.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Graf....I may be mistaken.... He acts like you know who...he is white and all of you are guilty.
I suppose sometimes you have to blow up something to purify it and make it stronger.
Similar writing style. Z did not believe what is being presented unless he was always trolling.
Saw that last night. It was perfect. I would run another one with a voiceover that explicitly lays out that she personally thinks fetuses are humans, but also wants people to be able to kill them. Maybe I'm just a little too on the nose.
I'd leave my wife for Zina Bash right now
Crittenden may be right after reading more. I can't read all of that tripe.
Z maybe.
Z maybe.
Sometimes it takes absolute garbage before you can succeed. It’s always darkest before the dawn.
Carter sucked so bad that we got Reagan
Obama sucked so bad that we got Trump
Each argument includes less and less. When the facts show you lied or made shit up, you drop it move on to something else, until it gets claimed false. That's diverting bud.
It's pretty telling of your argument when you think facts are garbage.
Again, no one has argued that food stamps did not go up. A recession and recovery would make that completely probable and understandable. However, if it's such an issue for you under Obama, why not the same for Bush and Trump? The number rose higher under Bush and is still in the 40 millions under Trump. However, you claim the Trump economy is the strangest ever. Yet, how can this be the food stamp number suggest a failing economy as you falsely claimed? That's you just talking out of both sides of your ass to try to support this uninformed and unsupported argument you are trying to make.
We both know where you are getting your information. It's Faux news.
It actually supported the argument about coal. Perhaps you would like to post the actual things you are claiming damage it.
Coal is not coming back. It's a dying industry. It's like saying floppy disk with make a resurgence. No going to happen. But of course most coal workers live in less educated areas the struggle economically because they have built their regions based of 1 industry. They are easily manipulated for votes.
Again, fake news.
U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.
As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.
Again, we will go to the facts.
Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016.
Again, Fake news. Please post evidence and numbers to support. I will.
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
If he is so popular and going to win so easily, why are Conservatives struggling in all these house races in districts Trump won with ease? As example. McGrath and Barr are dead locked in KY, which is very conservative. Conor Lamb in PA anyone? Trump has a mid 30's approval and it continually falls. But again, don't let those facts interfere.
That is all nice.
If I'm offended by Kaepernick, do I have the right to boycott Nike?
Let me say this, Kaepernick's pretty unimportant to me. Why does the left assume they can tell people on the right that they cannot be offended?
Ohh, I think you may have misunderstood or did not comprehend. I never said I was of higher intellectual standing. Just that I was not inbred, misinformed and void of fact.
Ohh, so one of the racist ones.
I'm reclaiming my time! Reclaiming my time! RECLAIMING MY TIME!!!
Each argument includes less and less. When the facts show you lied or made shit up, you drop it move on to something else, until it gets claimed false. That's diverting bud.
It's pretty telling of your argument when you think facts are garbage.
Again, no one has argued that food stamps did not go up. A recession and recovery would make that completely probable and understandable. However, if it's such an issue for you under Obama, why not the same for Bush and Trump? The number rose higher under Bush and is still in the 40 millions under Trump. However, you claim the Trump economy is the strangest ever. Yet, how can this be the food stamp number suggest a failing economy as you falsely claimed? That's you just talking out of both sides of your ass to try to support this uninformed and unsupported argument you are trying to make.
We both know where you are getting your information. It's Faux news.
It actually supported the argument about coal. Perhaps you would like to post the actual things you are claiming damage it.
Coal is not coming back. It's a dying industry. It's like saying floppy disk with make a resurgence. No going to happen. But of course most coal workers live in less educated areas the struggle economically because they have built their regions based of 1 industry. They are easily manipulated for votes.
Again, fake news.
U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.
As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.
Again, we will go to the facts.
Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016.
Again, Fake news. Please post evidence and numbers to support. I will.
The inflation-adjusted incomes of American households reached the highest level ever recorded under Obama. The Census Bureau’s measure of median household income reached $59,039 in 2016. That was $2,963 more in “real” (inflation-adjusted) dollars than in 2008, for an overall gain of 5.3 percent.
If he is so popular and going to win so easily, why are Conservatives struggling in all these house races in districts Trump won with ease? As example. McGrath and Barr are dead locked in KY, which is very conservative. Conor Lamb in PA anyone? Trump has a mid 30's approval and it continually falls. But again, don't let those facts interfere.
Are you dense, you keep posting the exact same things without grasping what they are saying. As I’ve stated and did before, none of what I posted or linked came from fox, not there’s anything wrong with Fox News. You don’t grasp the difference between and editorial show which is Hannity or Maddow, and news.
The Food stamp issue is that the number on them were 43 million when Obama left office, you keep saying that he was great for the economy, yet there were 10 more million people on food stamps when he left than when he started his term. 7.5 years AFTER the recession ended! I agree, they rose under Bush, because of the recession but Obama’s policies or lack there of causes that number to stay bloated his entire Presidency. The idea is to get people OFF food stamps.
What did Wind and solar quadruple from? Do you understand the difference between quadrupling from 1 to 4 and 100 to 400? What you’re stating as some grand achievement is not a linear growth, and was in large part influenced by a heavy handed Govt.
Those wind power numbers I gave you yesterday, we are forced to use them when they are available, never mind they cost roughly $100 a megawatt, where coal and gas is around 20-25 dollars per Megawatt. It isn’t equitable or reliable without heavy government subsidies. They shifted away from coal because NG became cheap and abundant. It takes a handful of people to operate a gas power plant, it takes hundreds to operate a coal plant. It’s simply economics and not some grand growth of renewables causing it.
When NG prices rise, coal will make a come back, can mark that down here and now. It’s either that or go without electricity, renewables cannot meet the instantaneous demand required for maintaining a grid. It’s not my opinion, it’s physics.
Did I dispute that oil grew under Obama, but it wasn’t due to Obama, it was in spite of him. He had nothing to do with it. The Dems weren’t for it, remember how much they fought against growing oil production. The cry was literally we can’t drill ourselves to cheap gas, remember? I sure as hell do.
Without the electoral college the Union never would’ve formed originally, it’s a brilliant concept that prevents all the power residing in largely populated states.
If you think Trump has an approval in the mid 30’s you’re nuts. The Reps have all 3 branches of Govt, history tells us that usually mean the opposing party makes massive gains in midterms. However, it’s in doubt that the Dems can pick up enough seats to retake the house, and likely to lose some in the Senate.
Surely after the 2016 election you realize polls can be skewed, just like stats.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com...onsumer-confidence-highest-since-october-2000
Consumer confidence chart, looky at what was happening in Obama’s final years, flattening out, you know why? Because the economy was stagnant and people knew it, now look what’s happened since. Highest point since the mid 90’s, because the economy is on fire and people have confidence in Trump leading. That’s why he will win in 20, and why the midterms are about to buck the recent trends.
Last edited:
Disgusting antics by Harris, of course she knows her constituents are too dumb to know. This is why politics are so divided bc of childishness such as this.
Your statements directly mirror the stuff spewed out of Faux news, Alt-Right Barbie and Sean Insanity. They are proven to lie repeatedly and have a viewership demographic of lower intellect and education levels. Again, proven.
First off, food stamps don't tell a fraction of the story on an economy. If you know anything about economic then you are obviously trying to promote a bias. If not, then you are just clueless and might want to educate yourself on it. Regardless, you are coming across as incredibly ignorant with the statements you've made regarding it. We have had a food stamp issue in this country for decades. People who receive aid tend to resist giving it up. Again, fact! The number rose under Bush and even more under Obama because of the recession and recovery. You fail to mention that the number then began to decrease in his 2nd term and the avg amount of aid per recipient was reduced as well. Again, facts you want to ignore. If you claim his number tells the story of a bad economy, but then claim Trump has the economy at record levels and in better shape than ever, without admitting the number is virtually unchanged, you are promoting a bias and not being honest. So please, do tell why you think the number is acceptable for Trump, but not Obama? Trump has been in office 19 months with full congressional control. Why not change it?
Again your claims here just aren't true. So we will again go back to the factual evidence until you elect to submit sources or factual evidence to the contrary.
Oil — U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.
As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.
Wind & Solar — Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016. The share supplied by burning natural gas went up from 21 percent to 34 percent, and the share supplied by nuclear plants remained steady at just under 20 percent.
Carbon Emissions — Meanwhile, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere from U.S. energy-related sources has declined during Obama’s time.
Between 2008 and 2016, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels went down 11 percent, according to estimates from the EIA.
Emissions have been falling even as the economy has been growing, in part because utilities — driven by lower natural gas prices and government regulations — have been burning more natural gas and less coal. Emissions from electric power plants in 2016 were the lowest since 1988, according to EIA figures.
So ignorant. Coal is dead and you know it. It's not coming back. And definitely not close to the levels it was because dependence will never be there again. It's called unsustainable for a reason. Solar panels are the new rage. And wind turbines aren't far behind. Not to mention other sustainable ways to produce.
Again, void of any factual evidence. Please support your statement with facts and not faux news opinions and conspiracy theories. Were they against lowering our foreign oil dependency and cost of fuels? Or just ensuring it was done in the safest possible way for the environment. Facts don't support your narrative. Which I am guessing is why you presented none.
Again, this is opinion and not based on any factual evidence. Please provide some factual statements and evidence that the US could not exist without the electoral college. Please explain how other countries with similar elections systems are able to use the popular vote instead and why that would not be possible in the US today?
Again, void of any factual evidence. Please support your statement with facts and not faux news opinions and conspiracy theories. Were they against lowering our foreign oil dependency and cost of fuels? Or just ensuring it was done in the safest possible way for the environment. Facts don't support your narrative. Which I am guessing is why you presented none.
Again, this is opinion and not based on any factual evidence. Please provide some factual statements and evidence that the US could not exist without the electoral college. Please explain how other countries with similar elections systems are able to use the popular vote instead and why that would not be possible in the US today?
What is wrong with you? No natter how many times you post something, it’s not changing the fact.
Wind and solar did not cause the drop, that simply is not accurate or real. The drop in coal is directly because of NG prices. If NG was still at the price is was 10 years ago, coal would still be king.
I work at a NG plant, I have seen first hand the dramatic drop in prices the last 8 years, and how the utility has shifted from coal to NG because of that.
I know oil surged, but it wasn’t due to anything Obama did or that the Dems wanted it to. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about if you say they did.
You can spin the food stamp issue however you like, 43 million were on it when Obama left, that was down slightly from its high under him. It’s 10 million more than we’re on it when he took office, that is not a good economy. Since Trump has taken office that number has dropped by almost 10%, I agree that isn’t good enough, but I fully expect that number to continue to drop as more good jobs are filled.
Solar and Wind are not equitable or reliable for large scale use. They MUST have a fossil or nuclear back up. We aren’t building nukes, we are the Saudi Arabia of coal, what happens when gas eventually gets expensive again?
We aren’t going to accept rolling blackouts, like California is on the verge of right now.
The states would not have joined the union with the premise that large cities or states would have unequal power. It’s pretty simple, it’s why we have and will continue to have the electoral college so take your leftist talking points somewhere else.
You’re an idiot that has no clue about what they’re writing about. When you get in a pinch you start name calling, childish.
100% agree. That was a horrible mistake by McGrath.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/page...uestion_20686.xml?uuid=UnUesq0MEeiafc0wUE_5Ag
https://www.emerson.edu/news-events...consider-third-party-option-2020#.W5QANuhKg2z
Another factually incorrect claim.
Actually, history shows that tends to happen in the 6th year of a presidency, not a 2nd. Never has a president had this much disparity between election results in 2 years. Republicans are struggling and trialing in a lot of places they have held for decades and that Trump won by double digits.
In 1934 -- two years into Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency, in the midst of the Great Depression -- Roosevelt's Democratic Party gained nine House seats and 10 Senate seats. And in 2002, roughly a year after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President George W. Bush's Republican Party gained eight House seats and two Senate seats.
But the president's party also avoided getting "shellacked" on other occasions.
We won't dig back as far as the Lincoln Administration, but in 1962, President John F. Kennedy's Democrats lost just four seats in the House and gained three seats in the Senate. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush's Republicans lost eight seats in the House and only one seat in the Senate -- a setback, but not a shellacking. And in 1998, President Bill Clinton gained five seats in the House and stayed even in the Senate.
The 1998 election under Clinton is especially notable, since elections six years after a president takes office tend to produce especially harsh results for the party occupying the White House. In fact, the 1998 election -- when voters were widely believed to be punishing a Republican overreach in their impeachment of Clinton -- represents the only time since the Civil War that a president has survived a sixth-year election with anything close to gains in both chambers.
It was expected to be a close election. It was. Hillary was projected win more votes, which she did. Again, how it that far off?
If consumer confidence was so low, why was essentially every economical standard under Obama up and at record highs? Why did the fed raise the rate? Which I noticed you have yet to admit you were wrong about.
Yes we see. That's why we, as America, overwhelmingly votes against it.
This is my last post Graf, if you believe Trumps popularity is at 30% you’re nuts, it isn’t.
The polls in 16 were claiming Clinton had a double digit lead in the days and weeks leading up to the election. Rasmussen was steady with its poll that things were a lot closer than that, as well as the LA times poll throughout the election cycle. They were accurate then, they were accurate in 12 as well. I think I’ll go with the one that has consistently been right. It shows Trump in the mid to high 40’s.
What happened in Clinton’s first mid term? Bush’s first mid term was affected by 9/11 so that may have played a role. Obama’s was a nightmare. If I didn’t make it clear, I was clearly talking about recent elections. Not the 30’s or 1800’s. That doesn’t make you look smart, simply that you have the internet.
Have a nice day, and when the Reps hold onto the house don’t go out and hurt someone or yourself.
You tell me why consumer and business owner confidence was so low? Maybe you’re using cherry picked stats. I was wrong on it being zero his entire Presidency, it was only at zero longer than any other President in history. What was it .25 when he left, but hey that’s a 250% increase from zero, right? See how stats can be skewed.
The polls in 16 were claiming Clinton had a double digit lead in the days and weeks leading up to the election. Rasmussen was steady with its poll that things were a lot closer than that, as well as the LA times poll throughout the election cycle. They were accurate then, they were accurate in 12 as well. I think I’ll go with the one that has consistently been right. It shows Trump in the mid to high 40’s.
What happened in Clinton’s first mid term? Bush’s first mid term was affected by 9/11 so that may have played a role. Obama’s was a nightmare. If I didn’t make it clear, I was clearly talking about recent elections. Not the 30’s or 1800’s. That doesn’t make you look smart, simply that you have the internet.
Have a nice day, and when the Reps hold onto the house don’t go out and hurt someone or yourself.
You tell me why consumer and business owner confidence was so low? Maybe you’re using cherry picked stats. I was wrong on it being zero his entire Presidency, it was only at zero longer than any other President in history. What was it .25 when he left, but hey that’s a 250% increase from zero, right? See how stats can be skewed.
Finally you are learning this. Let's see if you implement it here.
Again just simply not true and void of evidence. So back to the facts we go.
Energy
Oil — U.S. crude oil production, mainly due to advances in drilling technology, surged under Obama, helping to drive down fuel prices. In 2016, the U.S. produced 77 percent more crude oil than it did in 2008.
As a result, U.S. reliance on imported oil dropped by more than half. In 2016, the U.S. imported only 24.8 percent of the petroleum and refined products that it consumed, down from 57 percent in 2008. In 2015, it imported 24.1 percent, which was the lowest annual level of dependency on imports since 1970.
Wind & Solar — Wind and solar power has more than quadrupled under Obama. Electricity generated by large-scale wind and solar power facilities increased by 369 percent during the Obama years.
The increase in solar power in particular has been spectacular. The U.S. generated nearly 43 times more electricity from solar power in 2016 than in 2008.
Wind and solar accounted for 6.5 percent of total large-scale generation in 2016, up from a mere 1.4 percent in 2008. Wind and solar now account for as large a share as hydroelectric power, also at 6.5 percent of the total.
These figures are for “utility scale” electricity generation. In 2014, EIA also began tracking small-scale (under 1 megawatt) “distributed” solar voltaic generation, such as the power produced by rooftop systems installed by homeowners. In 2016, wind and solar accounted for 6.9 percent of the combined total of utility-scale power and “distributed” solar power.
Coal — As wind and solar rose, coal declined. Obama put forth new restrictions that his administration called a “Clean Power Plan,” and his critics dubbed a “war on coal.”
In 2016, U.S. coal production was 728 million metric tons, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s a decline of 38 percent since 2008.
During the Obama years, electric utilities shifted away from burning coal, which accounted for 48 percent of their power generation in 2008, but only 30 percent in 2016.
The economy was bad when Obama came into office. We agree on this, which is why it would rise. Obviously it improved and the number lowered, which you also agreed to. How is that bad?
10% would be 4.3 millions would would leave it at 38.7%. It is currently at 41%. Do you think that represent a bad economy currently? You don't get to say it for one and not the other. So let's here, good or bad?
Again, more lied, deceit and mis-understanding with sero evidence to support. Shocking.
Sure they would have. They would have adopted one of the other plans that was submitted by most of the original states. However, the union has completed changed since then. Blacks and women can vote now. So you fail to mention why it is still necessary today. We've changed a lot of other election processes.
I've taken my queues from your playbook. Blame yourself, not me.
My data comes from Imprimis Volume 45, number 4. I'm not sure if they are available online or not.
You did link two articles. One, Snopes, compared the homicide rates to each race's makeup of the general population. Do you think that is a valid measure of racial bias in police shootings? I don't, and have explained why it is not.
Your second article, from Vox, which is a liberal slanted website, also relates the homicide rate to the makeup in the general population. For full disclosure, Imprimis will be very conservative. The Vox article does mention that they don't believe crime rates in the neighborhoods explain all of the higher homicide rates for blacks, but they don't show any statistics or analysis for how they came to that conclusion. It appears that they are basically saying what the other article is saying; that the homicide rate should match the makeup of the race in the general population. That is a very unintelligent conclusion. The article I read cites very specific statistics on why they believe the homicide rate from police shootings for blacks is higher than whites despite being a much smaller percent of the population.
The Vox article does say the data sucks, so perhaps none of the analysis is worth anything at all, but I would expect the homicide rate from police shootings to follow violent crime rates more than the makeup of the general population. Therefore, if one race has a higher rate of violent crime, they will most likely have a higher rate of being killed by the police. The data that I have seen indicates that blacks have a much higher rate of violent crime than do whites.
The Vox article mentioned that in one study police were more likely to shoot blacks in a video game setting. They jump to the conclusion that is racial bias. It could be racial bias, but it could also be other things. The thing that comes to my mind is experience. If the majority of violent offenders are black, then the police will be on higher alert around black suspects than they are non black suspects because of what experience has taught them. That is just human nature and would correct itself if violent crime rates decline for blacks.
Finally, speculating oh what would have happened to Brock Turner had he been black is a worthless exercise because we don't know and it doesn't matter. Brock Turner is just one case and Brock Turner is not a police homicide. I'm not one to let speculation about one case sway my opinion about the entire population.
I just posted you some links proving where it was at 38, which is around the mid 30's I claimed. Not the 30% you made up.
Double digit leads? Most any reputable poll had them both well within the margin of error. Most pols projected Clinton would squeak out a win, and polling is based off voters, which she did get 3 million more of.
The 1998 election under Clinton is especially notable, since elections six years after a president takes office tend to produce especially harsh results for the party occupying the White House. In fact, the 1998 election -- when voters were widely believed to be punishing a Republican overreach in their impeachment of Clinton -- represents the only time since the Civil War that a president has survived a sixth-year election with anything close to gains in both chambers.
You have the same internet, do you not? You can get facts, the problem for you is they simply do exist to support your arguments. History shows most presidents lost congress in year 6, true or false? This is year 2 for Trump? True or false? Some have lost some have gained, true or false? There is no annual precedent for losing seats in year 2 of a new president. It's just not so. There is also not a pattern of the shellacking the Republican party is very likely to take. That's fact
Likewise, You as well.
I would if it actually was true, but nothing factual suggest that. That don't raise interest rates when consumer confidence is low. And as you finally agreed, the did. Corporations and the market were at record high profits. Again, that demonstrates the opposite of your claims. Incomes were up, jobs were up. Again, that points to confidence.
Ronald Reagan:
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%
George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%
Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%
George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%
Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%
Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion
Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Percent change in total debt: +218%
George H.W. Bush:
Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion
Left office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Percent change in total debt: +55%
Bill Clinton:
Took office 20 January 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion
Left office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Percent change in total debt: +37%
George W. Bush:
Took office 20 January 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion
Left office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Percent change in total debt: +86%
Barack Obama:
Took office 20 January 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion
Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion
Percent change in total debt: +34%
Are you saying consumer confidence wasn’t stagnant and dropping in 16? It pretty clearly was as the market and and economy had stalled.
Like I said, if you believe Trumps popularity is in 30’s you obviously haven’t learned much.
Trump clearly isn’t in year 6, and recent Elections show that when one party controls all 3 branches they lose seats in the elections, generally a lot of seats. The exception is 2002, but that was after 9/11 and clearly not a normal cycle.
You’re trying to convince people of something that isn’t so. Trump is a leader, Obama was propped up.
Ohhh Bill, here you go again the laws and alternative facts.
Btw, I thought you were done? Or was that just another lie?
That's what I am saying and is verified by the fact the the Fed raised the rate, which you had to admit was true. Earlier your claim was the economy was bad because the Rate had not been raised. The Fed doesn't raise the rate in a down economy because that would likely cause a detriment. You raise rates in a good economy to prevent a burst. Of course, you should know this if you know about economics as you claimed. Also, you would know the the economy always slows when interest rates climb. Again, that is literally one of the main points in raising them.
I just posted 2 completely different sourced articles from the last month that shows it was at 38%. You just deny this is true? Again, alternative facts are something you are allowed to believe in, but they aren't real.
The only historical elections you are using to base the ludicrous assertion is Obama's. That's not a historical trend, that's just 1. Again, historically Presidents to lose seats or congressional control by year 2, especially not an abundance. This will be historic.
You are to data what Harvey Weinstein was to struggling actresses.
Emotional bitches like words, grown-ups like results.
Wow Levi, you only left off 5 years Obama Presidency. Good job, there’s a guy in another thread right up your alley.
I think we're all forgetting the point. Cops suck. Hopefully Nike gets those Colin Kaepernick branded pig socks on the market soon.
I wonder if its possible that nobody in the WH wrote that NYTs op-ed and was instead written by the NYTs. I mean, the NYTs ain't exactly known for honesty.
Void of sources or factual evidence again I see. Everything is available online. So it would be easy to cite this.
Yes. There is not an equally proportionate numbers of white to black. Therefore, you have to look at percentage. As of July 2016, White Americans are the racial majority. African Americans are the largest racial minority, amounting to an estimated 12.7% of the population. Hispanic and Latino Americans amount to an estimated 17.8% of the total U.S. population, making up the largest ethnic minority.[8] The White, non-Hispanic or Latino population make up 61.3% of the nation's total, with the total White population (including White Hispanics and Latinos) being 76.9%. Of course more white people are killed by cops. White people make up 5 times more of the population. However, black people don't lag in total numbers that far behind white people and are growing considerably on an annual basis. If you can't see that there is a larger likelihood of being targeted, assaulted, shot, falsely accused and incarcerated by police if you are a black person, then I don't know what to tell you. The evidence literally suggest it however you spin it. If you can't comprehend that, you are either misinformed, retarded or okay with it. I'll let you choose.
Obviously black on black crime is an issue. As is crime among every other racial group and the country in general.You don't just ignore that. You address it and make it right. Black communities aren't going to get better until they build better relationships with law enforcement. If black people are rightly fearful of being targeted and murdered by police, how do you think that will improve?
Since Rape is a more often committed crime than murder, should we just not worry as much about murder and let the victims and their families deal with it in their own way and just shift responsibility to someone else?
Both articles provided plenty of evidence to support. Far more than anything you have posted. I can't make you accept it or agree with it, but that don't make it untrue or nonfactual. Vox really isn't that liberal, but spin it how you want. Again, it's still factual. Beliefs are great, but facts are just better and irrefutable.
Where does it say the data sucks? Or was it saying that it is lacking and incomplete in total reports and another better records need to be maintained? Which, the other article I linked was all about and provided other methods of measurement which were in greater detail and quanitity and a similar conclusion. That one not fit the all agenda either?
All evidence supports most cops are on higher alert around black people. Evidence supports people in general are on higher alert around black people. But I ask, how more often have you actually experienced criminal activity from a black person? We already know black people get targeted more by police. Every indicator suggest this. You have even admitted it. Again, that is a problem. How many non-violent black offenders are clogging our jails and prisons serving sentences for longer than their white counterparts for identical infractions?
Which is reiterated by the Brock Turner case and why I mentioned it. The judge wrote that it would be detrimental to him because of his upbringing to leave him in prison any longer than the sentence handed down. Please point out a case involving a black male accused of rape that received a similar sentence or statement from a judge. It's not speculation. It's truth white people refuse to admit or acknowledge.
Those who put their lives on the line to protect others are the true heroes, and my thanks go out to all of the first responders who do this on a daily basis across the country - police, fire, EMT’s. These officers were in the line of fire and did their job and moved forward and took out the murderer. Notice how calm they were speaking, not out of breath, and took down the threat.
These are heroes not the people like Kaep who spew hate and support murderers and want to be admired for it. He did not sacrifice anything - he blew as a QB who went 3-16 and lost his job so he knelt and cried. He is a liar and only means he will never play football and it has nothing to do with race - only performance. Ironic that Dr King, who did so much good and did it the right way, asked to be judged by the content of his character not the color of his skin; however, Kaep does not want to be judged as a football player by his ability and uses lies and hate to divide.
So why do so many police, first responders, active military and vets support his movement? Why did a Marine give him the idea?
Donating millions of dollars and countless hours of time to underprivileged and indigent communities isn't a positive for you? Creating an organization for kids, particularly minorities, to engage and build relationships isn't good to you?
Did you think Mark Furman was a hero?
Plenty of people long ago moved on from Kap and don’t care about any of this. Some folks do still have interest in the work he is doing. With that in mind, I wanted to list out every organization that has received money from Kaepernick and his friends as part of this process. 40 different organizations received some kind of donation from Colin Kaepernick this year, and ten of them received some additional funding from his friends.
This does not include the money he has put into running his Know Your Rights Camps. Additionally, his donation to Somalia Famine Relief was part of broader work with Ben Stiller that raised $3 million and helped get a plane to deliver supplies to Somalia.
I’ve included links to the organizational websites in case you want to learn more and/or potentially donate to them. SI also had a great article in December in which they spoke with people from several of these organizations about how the donations happened.
October 2016
Silicon Valley De-Bug ($25,000)
Causa Justa/Just Cause ($25,000)
Urban Underground ($25,000)
Mothers Against Police Brutality ($25,000)
November 2016
Black Youth Project (25,000)
Gathering For Justice/Justice League ($25,000)
Communities United for Police Reform ($25,000)
I Will Not Die Young Campaign ($25,000)
December 2016
UCSF for “The Mni Wiconi Health Clinic Partnership at Standing Rock” ($50,000)
Appetite for Change ($25,000)
Southsiders Organized for Unity and Liberation ($25,000)
January 2017
Black Veterans For Social Justice ($25,000)
350 Global Environmental Organization ($25,000)
Center For Reproductive Rights ($25,000)
CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles) ($25,000)
February 2017
Meals on Wheels ($50,000)
Somalia Famine Relief ($50,000)
March 2017
Life After Hate ($50,000)
Leaders Of A Beautiful Struggle ($25,000)
Silence Is Violence ($25,000)
April 2017
Assata’s Daughters ($25,000)
Helping Oppressed Mothers Endure (H.O.M.E.) ($25,000)
Grassroots Leadership ($25,000)
American Friends Service Committee ($25,000)
May 2017
The Dreamville Foundation ($34,000)
Lower East Side Girls Club ($33,000)
100 Suits For 100 Men ($33,000)
June 2017
DREAM (Formerly RBI Harlem) ($25,000)
Coalition For The Homeless ($25,000)
Justice League NYC: War on Children Program ($25,000)
United We Dream ($25,000)
10x10
DeBug San Jose ($20,000 with Kevin Durant)
The Advancement Project ($20,000 with Jesse Williams)
United Playaz ($20,000 with Steph Curry)
Mothers Against Police Brutality ($35,000 with Snoop Dogg)
Imagine LA ($20,000 with Serena Williams)
Angel By Nature ($20,000 with TI)
Schools on Wheels ($30,000 with Chris Brown, Jhene Aiko)
Communities United By Police Reform ($40,000 with Nick Cannon, Joey Badass)
Youth Services, Inc. ($20,000 with Meek Mill)
H.O.M.E, linked above ($20,000 with Usher)
Similar threads
