BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
Sorry, I usually don't encourage him. But this really made me laugh...
The Wikileak this is referencing actually came off as empathetic. It had a "no wonder they're pissed off." tone to it.
Not exactly an unfair portrayal.“Some are new to politics completely. They’re children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future. I met with a group of young black millennials today and you know one of the young women said, “You know, none of us feel that we have the job that we should have gotten out of college. And we don’t believe the job market is going to give us much of a chance.”
“So that is a mindset that is really affecting their politics. And so if you’re feeling like you’re consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn’t pay a lot, and doesn’t have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing.
I agree, but Hillary haters and Trump sympathizers think they are making a point.The Wikileak this is referencing actually came off as empathetic. It had a "no wonder they're pissed off." tone to it.
Not exactly an unfair portrayal.
I think the big "bombshell" was her Wall Street speech transcript, which proved she was as duplicitous as everyone already knew she was.Still waiting for the bombshell email to drop so far they have been pretty lame.
If something is going to curtail her track to winning it has to drop this week so that it can have time to make a full impact.
There would have literally been no fallout. Trump has done everything right wing evangelicals have been fighting against. Evangelicals wouldn't give up on their golden calf no matter if he shat on Pat Robertson's face..It wasn't a "bombshell" because nobody seemed to care, but her staffers openly talked about starting left-wing Catholic PACs to undermine the Church hierarchy with what they called a "Catholic Spring." It basically confirmed what a lot of orthodox Catholic commentators were saying all along, while they were being accused of paranoia by members of these PACs.
This matters to me, and it's ultimately the reason Hillary won't get my "rejection of Trump" vote. Imagine the fallout if Trump had been found to be working to undermine the authority of non-Christian religion in America.
I'm talking about media coverage, not support.There would have literally been no fallout. Trump has done everything right wing evangelicals have been fighting against. Evangelicals wouldn't give up on their golden calf no matter if he shat on Pat Robertson's face..
But we've reached such a saturation with Trump outrage. It would die in a news cycle. Just like every unforgivable thing he always does. By the time he hit the General campaign his "fallout" was like a game of mad libs that the media and the GOP played on a weekly basis.I'm talking about media coverage, not support.
But we've reached such a saturation with Trump outrage. It would die in a news cycle. Just like every unforgivable thing he always does. By the time he hit the General campaign his "fallout" was like a game of mad libs that the media and the GOP played on a weekly basis.
"The Trump campaign is scrambling after footage surfaced of Trump LITERALLY SHITTING ON PAT ROBERTSON'S FACE. When reached for comment Paul Ryan condemned Trump saying that LITERALLY SHITTING ON PAT ROBERTSON'S FACE does not fall in line conservative values. Ryan has not withdrawn his endorsement."
For the same reason that things have gotten even worse for the poor under a democratic president. Republicans claim to have certain ideals, democrats claim to have certain ideals but in reality they are all the same. They are politicians who only care about racking up favors and getting elected again.Could someone explain to me why Republican presidents (vs. Big Government) rack up the biggest debt?
Shouldn't it be the other way around?
He added 68% to the biggest number in history since it has steadily grown since WWII, every president (with little exception) will do that, but not % wise which would be easier to compare, there GW went 101%.I haven't seen the numbers on the current administration lately but the deficient was headed for a record amount at one point.
Dealing strictly with percentages can be a little deceiving as to actual dollar changes. The actual numbers show the amount the deficit increases while percentage of increase compares one amount to another. Example a billion dollar increase in the amount this year may be say 20 % of the amount of this years deficit over last year but last years deficit was a half billion but and was still 40% of the previous years deficit.He added 68% to the biggest number in history since it has steadily grown since WWII, every president (with little exception) will do that, but not % wise which would be easier to compare, there GW went 101%.
Clinton 32%
Reagan 186%
GHB 54%
Carter 43%
Yeah the best measure would be dollar increase adjusted for inflation. Percentage is a pretty meaningless statistic when it comes to an increase in the deficit.Amounts and percentages are thrown around with a lot of spin. The actual dollars are still increasing the overall deficit at a record pace even though the increase may not be as high a percent this year but still a deficit. It's confusing. Just look at the actual dollar figure to get a truer representation.