Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm corrected.

 whembly wrote:
I'm corrected.

No problem, I just had to make sure that M*A*S*H hadn't been kicked off the top spot by something on Fox

Well damn...

The Obama years is just like in the Jimmah Carter years.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

93,770,000 people out of the workforce... numbers not seen since the late 70's.

And you wonder why some folks are harping against the illegal immigration fiascos.

Between July 14 and July 15 did the population of the US grow by 2000? Or a few more. Because the steadily decreasing unemployment suggests that, while the number increased marginally, a lot of people found their way into work. More than those that didn't.

 motyak wrote:
Between July 14 and July 15 did the population of the US grow by 2000? Or a few more. Because the steadily decreasing unemployment suggests that, while the number increased marginally, a lot of people found their way into work. More than those that didn't.

How many times are those numbers only reflecting those who are still "actively" unemployed (ie, pulling unemployment, active within 24-48 hours on job sites, etc)? While I would also dispute the sheer number (seriously, almost 100 million people??? I doubt that) How many unemployment surveys account for people like many of my friends who, even though she's got a bachelor's degree, has made the conscious decision to not work while the kids are in the house? Seriously, she hasn't had a job in about 5 years now. Most unemployment surveys aren't going to count her, because she's no longer "actively seeking" employment.

I mean, yeah, the unemployment numbers are going down, woo hoo, but that's the thing that so many news outlets fail to report on, is that there are many people who are dropping off of those tracking metrics, which is why, while I may raise an eyebrow at nearly 100 million people, I'm not all that surprised that there could be nearly 1/3d of all people not working.

I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.

 whembly wrote:
Well damn...

The Obama years is just like in the Jimmah Carter years.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm

93,770,000 people out of the workforce... numbers not seen since the late 70's.

And you wonder why some folks are harping against the illegal immigration fiascos.

Those people should probably spend more time wondering why illegals are getting the jobs that Americans aren't. Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.

Is it laziness then, or poor education? Is it entitlement, or the perception of it? Is it the other side of the spectrum? By that I mean, are the ludicrously rich maintaining that wealth by paying people illegal wage rates for work done "under the table" as opposed to taking a slight hit to their almighty Margin to pay for legitimate help? Perhaps somewhere in the middle?

Or people expect more pay for the less amount of work

Ouze wrote:
I'm not an economist but 100 million people not in the workplace means actual unemployment, with 218m working age americans, would be like, 50%, which sounds to me like there is some shenanigans afoot with how those numbers are being presented.

I've always found the age breakdown to be a bit annoying. I understand the 16-19 category as that pretty well encompasses the group who are legally able to work, but still in school full-time. But the absence of an 18-23, or even 16-23, category seems rather lame given the number of people who move on to higher education.

The beginning of Trump's downfall?



Trump actually said:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her... wherever."

O.o

WTH do you think Trump was going to do? Answer back like a politician?

 Jihadin wrote:
WTH do you think Trump was going to do? Answer back like a politician?

He's being petulant.

Imagine him running the IRS and DoJ... that's like a 3rd Obama term.

 whembly wrote:
The beginning of Trump's downfall?


Trump actually said:

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her... wherever."

O.o

The beginning? Most likely. I mentioned before the debate that all it would really take is someone getting under Trump's skin, as he has a history of reacting very badly to people who mock/annoy him. Whether or not this will start bringing down the Trumpmania™, who knows? He didn't say it on live TV in front of 24 million people, and his fans will remain his fans. If a few of the other candidates can get their barbs in, too, then we might see Trump spiral out of control.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Why aren't those unemployed Americans out there working the fields, cleaning hotel rooms, working construction, etc.? Illegals aren't the cause, they're a symptom.

Is it laziness then, or poor education? Is it entitlement, or the perception of it? Is it the other side of the spectrum? By that I mean, are the ludicrously rich maintaining that wealth by paying people illegal wage rates for work done "under the table" as opposed to taking a slight hit to their almighty Margin to pay for legitimate help? Perhaps somewhere in the middle?

Probably all of that, with higher costs of living today mixed in and more. Here's what I do know: both of my grandfathers, after WWII, had a wife, a house, each had five kids, and both were able to support their families with a job in the auto-industry in Flint, MI (one worked for GM, one for ACDelco, although later on one of my grandmothers got a job as a secretary in a doctor's office). Would such a thing be even remotely possible today?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Would such a thing be even remotely possible today?

Not without a large amount of government assistance.

 whembly wrote:
The beginning of Trump's downfall?

I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.

Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The beginning of Trump's downfall?

I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.

Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.

At some point... enough is enough. Right?

The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.

It was as others said a chance to thin the herd down, aimed at knocking Trump off his saddle as he is easy to anger, and he starts spewing like a volcano.

 dogma wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Would such a thing be even remotely possible today?

Not without a large amount of government assistance.

And as I said in the other "economics" thread, I think that there's something seriously wrong with that.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.

Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.

Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.

Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.

Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.

And yeah, I can't really see one of them truly addressing the "unending war cycle", because for many Rs out there, the thought that maybe we shouldn't be fighting all the damn time would be considered "cowardly".

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The beginning of Trump's downfall?

I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.

Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.

The amount of "she's a stupid bitch so who cares about what Trump said" posts from Republican friends and family members with links to other editorial sites defending him/demonizing her on good old Facebook is pretty eye opening.

 d-usa wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The beginning of Trump's downfall?

I saw Erick Ericson disinvited him from some Redstate gathering.

Hilarious. It wasn't a problem when he was a disgusting sexist to all those other women, but once Trump said something about Megyn Kelly, people can't wait to mount their white chargers and defend the maiden's virtues. What transparent toolboxes.

The amount of "she's a stupid bitch so who cares about what Trump said" posts from Republican friends and family members with links to other editorial sites defending him/demonizing her on good old Facebook is pretty eye opening.

A) He's a fething donkey-cave.
B) He's exactly what you'd call a RINO.
C) At least he didn't call a political party Iranian Hardliners.
D) Trump is going down.

See, I think there is a sizeable minority of GOP voters who won't care what he says; he just appears anti establishment, talks tough and struts and they will eat it up. His top end of likely voters is probably only 20%, but his bottom end hardcore voters is probably upwards of 15%. That 15% won't win him the primary, but it will likely keep him in the race with so many other candidates, and as a result, the spotlight will stay on him. Which is not good for the GOP image at large.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 shasolenzabi wrote:
The debate, Hmmm, not much answered on the few subjects they covered, typically vague political answers for the most part, and nothing on Climate Change, Income and Wealth Inequality, crumbling infrastructure, our un-ending war cycles, or many meatier subjects.

Some of those topics would be pointless to bring up in a solely Republican debate, as it would just be an echo chamber.

Which is kinda sad, really. The first R with the balls to stand up and say "whether or not climate change is real, I do believe in cleaner air, cleaner water, and a cleaner environment for our kids to breathe, drink, and live in" will be one worth listening to. But instead that stay laser focussed on the climate change arguments.

And yeah, I can't really see one of them truly addressing the "unending war cycle", because for many Rs out there, the thought that maybe we shouldn't be fighting all the damn time would be considered "cowardly".

It's not about being "cowardly," but about making money. The real truth is that the defense industry is worth billions, and brings LOTS of money to various politician's districts. Every politician is in the pocket of at least one special corporate interest. For example, on the climate change thing, look at every politician who vigorously denies it, and then look at how much the oil and coal industries are paying them, or how much of that industry is in their district. Look at those espousing the alternative energy industry, and see who pays them or who is in their districts. It's rarely about what is right or what is best for our future, it's about money.

Well.....Reagan didn't have a excellent politician upbringing.......

After completing fourteen home-study Army Extension Courses, Reagan enlisted in the Army Enlisted Reserve and was commissioned a second lieutenant in the Officers Reserve Corps of the cavalry on May 25, 1937

OMG.......Shake n Bake LT

In January 1944, Reagan was ordered to temporary duty in New York City to participate in the opening of the Sixth War Loan Drive. He was reassigned to the First Motion Picture Unit on November 14, 1944, where he remained until the end of World War II.[34] He was recommended for promotion to major on February 2, 1945, but this recommendation was disapproved on July 17 of that year.[35] While with the First Motion Picture Unit in 1945, he was indirectly involved in discovering actress Marilyn Monroe.[36] He returned to Fort MacArthur, California, where he was separated from active duty on December 9, 1945. By the end of the war, his units had produced some 400 training films for the AAF.

Reagan never left the United States during the war, though he kept a film reel, obtained while in the service, depicting the liberation of Auschwitz, as he believed that someday doubts would arise as to whether the Holocaust had occurred. It has been alleged that he was

overheard telling Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir in 1983 that he had filmed that footage himself and helped liberate Auschwitz,though this purported conversation was disputed by Secretary of State George Shultz.

Say it ain't so BRIAN!!!!

During the late 1940s, Reagan and his wife provided the FBI with names of actors within the motion picture industry whom they believed to be communist sympathizers, though he expressed reservations; he said "Do they expect us to constitute ourselves as a little FBI of our own and determine just who is a Commie and who isn't?".

Reagan testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on the subject as well. A fervent anti-communist, he reaffirmed his commitment to democratic principles, stating, "I never as a citizen want to see our country become urged, by either fear or resentment of this group, that we ever compromise with any of our democratic principles through that fear or resentment."]

When legislation that would become Medicare was introduced in 1961, Reagan created a recording for the American Medical Association warning that such legislation would mean the end of freedom in America. Reagan said that if his listeners did not write letters to prevent it, "we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this, and if I don't do it, one of these days, you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children, and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free. He also joined the National Rifle Association and would become a lifetime member.

NOT THE NRA!!!!! NNNOOOOOOO

Reagan was involved in high-profile conflicts with the protest movements of the era. On May 15, 1969, during the People's Park protests at UC Berkeley, Reagan sent the California Highway Patrol and other officers to quell the protests, in an incident that became known as "Bloody Thursday", resulting in the death of student James Rector and the blinding of carpenter Alan Blanchard. Reagan then called out 2,200 state National Guard troops to occupy the city of Berkeley for two weeks to crack down on the protesters. A year after "Bloody Thursday", Reagan responded to questions about campus protest movements saying, "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with. No more appeasement. When the Symbionese Liberation Army kidnapped Patty Hearst in Berkeley and demanded the distribution of food to the poor, Reagan joked to a group of political aides about a botulism outbreak contaminating the food.[85] Conversely, in that one afternoon, "Bloody Thursday", 111 police officers were injured, including one C.H.P. officer who was knifed in the chest. After calling in the National Guard, the Guard remained in Berkeley for 17 days, camping in People's Park, and demonstrations subsided as the University removed cordoned-off fencing and placed all development plans for People's Park on hold.

Pick up the can Civilian.

Edit

We all can go on and on and on like a wheel on a bus on point; counter point. Not saying Trump a Reagan being one done the Oval Office rodeo but...its Reagan.....Its Trump....

 whembly wrote:

C) At least he didn't call a political party Iranian Hardliners.

Obama wrote:It's those hard-liners chanting ‘death to America’ who have been most opposed to the deal. They are making a common cause with the Republican caucus.

I don't see any indication that Obama called the Republican caucus "Iranian Hardliners".

Exactly, he said they shared common cause, as both announced their opposition to the deal before the deal was even completed.

Like I said earlier, the opposition/support for the deal is based solely on politics/lobbying, and has nothing to do with actual diplomacy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Exactly, he said they shared common cause, as both announced their opposition to the deal before the deal was even completed.

Like I said earlier, the opposition/support for the deal is based solely on politics/lobbying, and has nothing to do with actual diplomacy.

Oh c'mon man.

The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.

 whembly wrote:

The defense for Obama ya'll trying to spin is getting nauseating.

Pot, meet kettle.