The Trump Presidency

[Bells]

Or much more likely, the blue collar workers were at work during the work week. Welfare recipients had the free time in 2009.

Hmm..

By making this ridiculous argument, you are basically saying that Trump and his administration lied about the crowd attendance.

Trump advised that there were 1 million to 1.5 million, while Sean Spicer gave this rage filled press conference where he prattled on about the ground covering making it look sparse, but that it was really packed with people and claimed Trump's inauguration was the biggest and had the most people than any other inauguration watching said inauguration.

Yet here you are, saying that the explanation for the lack of people watching the inauguration is due to people being at work and thus, unable to attend..

Essentially, you are saying that Trump and his administration are lying. Because they are saying they had more people than the Obama inauguration in 2009. You are saying there were less people than in 2009 because Trump voters were actually working.

So who is being dishonest Syne? You with your argument that less attended Trump's inauguration than Obama's inauguration because Trump's voters would have been at work? Or Trump and his administration's claim that they had the more than Obama?

 

[sculptor]

Taken from Tulsi Gabbard's website:

 

[Randwolf]

Yet here you are, saying that the explanation for the lack of people watching the inauguration is due to people being at work and thus, unable to attend..

Come now Bells - I don't think that there's a limit to the number of "alternative facts" that can exist simultaneously

That's the beauty of post-truth - it's a smorgasbord. Each of us can have our own reality without invalidating any other reality.

Have you no tolerance and understanding? Objectivity is so yesterday...

 

[Kittamaru]

Come now Bells - I don't think that there's a limit to the number of "alternative facts" that can exist simultaneously

That's the beauty of post-truth - it's a smorgasbord. Each of us can have our own reality without invalidating any other reality.

Have you no tolerance and understanding? Objectivity is so yesterday...

This would be funny... if it wasn't the sad truth (that facts are apparently subjective now lol)

 

[Syne]

No, it isn't rocket science. You have been repeatedly asked for a link to your Wiki reference, and you have repeatedly been unable to do so.

Are you really that obtuse?
This is the link you found all the way back in post #125: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits
Now, do see in the contents where it says United States? That's what I quoted. Apparently it was rocket science...for you.

And you really think that makes sense? You are quoting your self.

There's your faulty memory at work again (hence me trying to quote enough context to help you keep up). Remember, you erroneously thought we were talking about the Women's March. But I have no doubt that there's quite a lot doesn't make sense to you. That can happen when your memory ain't for shit.

Did I say 40 hour week filling out applications? There is a lot more to finding a job than filling out applications. Once more for your edification, if you are unemployed, finding employment is a full time job. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Unemployment isn't a paid vacation comrade.

You said, "if you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job." Since full-time is 40 hrs/wk, what else do you propose takes up that 40 hrs? I think most states only require like 3-4 applications a week...so, an hour each, including any drive time. Checking the help wanted ads...another hour for each lead? An hour interview per application? Well, we're up to about 9-12 hrs, being very generous. How do you account for the remaining 28-31 hrs?

Who said "welfare recipients" are all unemployed?

So you don't remember writing, "
So people collecting unemployment aren't on welfare?
Unemployment benefits are social welfare payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. - wiki"

LOL! Just like your thumb is a digit but not all digits are thumbs, all the unemployed could be on welfare while not everyone on welfare is unemployed. Haven't you even been going on about the work requirement for welfare? Simple reasoning skills, mate.

Only now did you admit to using the wrong name. Where did I say or even hint that Social Security was as "savings" program? I've been telling you now for several posts that Social Security wasn't a savings program.

Two, parsing your words isn't honest, is it? You wrote, "draws on it": essentially the same thing as "draw down". That's not a straw man.

Apparently, "Oops. " wasn't clear enough for you. Even as a reply to your, "SSI is Supplemental Security Income; it isn't Social Security and it's funded by the general fund. It isn't a retirement fund..oops." Man, I really give you too much credit. You're the only one who mentioned "savings" (post #127), as a straw man. You even insisted on this straw man (post #131) after I asked, "Who said anything about a "savings program"?" Some intellectual honesty please. Or you can just keep arguing a point I never refuted, nor even implied. Some people enjoy hollow victories.

I guess you don't live in the US. "Drawing on Social Security" is typically how it's said. For example, my mother doesn't have to draw on her own social security, since her ex-husband died, she can draw on his social security instead. Just fucking Google it.

Or much more likely, the blue collar workers were at work during the work week. Welfare recipients had the free time in 2009.

Hmm..

By making this ridiculous argument, you are basically saying that Trump and his administration lied about the crowd attendance.

Trump advised that there were 1 million to 1.5 million, while Sean Spicer gave this rage filled press conference where he prattled on about the ground covering making it look sparse, but that it was really packed with people and claimed Trump's inauguration was the biggest and had the most people than any other inauguration watching said inauguration.

Yet here you are, saying that the explanation for the lack of people watching the inauguration is due to people being at work and thus, unable to attend..

Essentially, you are saying that Trump and his administration are lying. Because they are saying they had more people than the Obama inauguration in 2009. You are saying there were less people than in 2009 because Trump voters were actually working.

So who is being dishonest Syne? You with your argument that less attended Trump's inauguration than Obama's inauguration because Trump's voters would have been at work? Or Trump and his administration's claim that they had the more than Obama?

And? I have zero doubt that Trump is inflating his turn out numbers.
"Yet?" Actually, the low turn out numbers is what bolsters what I said.
Yes, I do think Trump and his administration are lying. If you ever bothered to quit stereotyping, maybe you'd have found that out before introducing foot to mouth.

Politifact did a pretty good rundown on the estimate for Trump's inaugural:

Trump, 2017
250,000 to 600,000

Barack Obama, 2013
1 million

Obama, 2009
1.8 million

George W. Bush, 2005
400,000

Bush, 2001
300,000

Bill Clinton, 1997
250,000

Clinton, 1993
800,000

George H.W. Bush, 1989
300,000
​

You see any pattern? Notice that Republican turn out tends to be lower than Democrat? Now maybe all those Bible-thumping, cram their religion down your throat with gov'ment types really don't care all that much. Or maybe they're just too busy working.

 

[joepistole]

Both sides of the media present truth, however both sides also use data tricks, to manipulate how their audiences interpret the truth. As an example, if I only pointed out bad things about you, an audience can be made to go against you. If it was properly proportioned truth that paints an accurate picture then the audience will see someone else. In this case, all the data can be true, but one sided truth does not paint a complete or balanced picture of you.

Both sides...? There is the mainstream media where facts and reason matter and then there is right wing media where facts and reason don't matter, where truth is subordinated to partisan interests.

If I showed you nothing but plane crashes ,while ignoring millions of flight hours that are safe, people can get the impression flying is less safe, than the full data set suggests. I can compound the impact of this data stacking, if I have a fleet of experts, reinforcing the doom and gloom, but not the whole truth.

As another example, CNN will willingly report the Russian hacking of the DNC. This is true. However, you will not hear them say much about how Hillary and the DNC, never denied the authenticity and content of those hacked e-mails. The things in the emails, were truth that was never supposed to be released and are being ignored once again. That hidden truth changed the picture of Hillary and the DNC and had an impact on the election. Now CNN is trying to change that more balance picture, back to the victim card, with no mention of the scam artists behind the curtain. Like in a magic trick, the audience is induced to look over there, so the magician an his assistant, can do trick.

Well here is the thing, why should Hillary be required to validate the veracity of the hacked documents? As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Russia waited until the final days and hours of the election to dump the many thousands of documents making it impossible for Hillary to validate them. That's why Russia waited until the last minute. And you have been given evidence Russia altered some of the documents, and that information has been published. Just because your news, Fox News, a right wing propaganda outlet didn't publish it, it doesn't mean all media outlets didn't publish it.

There is nothing nefarious about Hillary's inability to validate all of the hacked emails in the final hours of the election.

What Trump should do is make a distinction between freedom of the press and freedom of speech. All reporters and all news agencies have freedom of speech. However, if they exceed certain limits of balanced truth, they get their press credentials suspended for anywhere from days to years. They can still play the data game, as citizens, but will lose their license to deceive in an official press capacity.

Well, here is the thing. The mainstream media isn't lying. Trump's doing the lying, e.g. the number of people who attended his inauguration, not the mainstream media. Using your "logic" somebody needs to suspend Trump's presidency every time he or his surrogates lie to the American people.

We have a free press in this country, and it should remain free.

One way to quantify this is to rate new agencies and news reporters based on what they have said, in the past,based on how history played out. For example, all reporters who said Trump will never get elected, get a D for that. Then we average the grades and post these for everyone to see. We have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight to grade the media based on past performance in news reporting. If they like to pass gossip of truth this will lower their grade. The grading system will cause the free market to drift audience in the direction of higher news value. This will hit owners in the pockets, and they will makes changes based on being accurate and balanced.

Isn't that how people assess media outlets today?

We have the EPA to protect us from pollution of the earth, why not an agency to protect citizens from news pollution? Wouldn't it be better if you could tune into any news station and expect fair and balanced news, instead of propaganda wings of political parties?

On the other hand, people react better to entertainment than to education. Many people like lopsided news since it will induce emotions, which is part to the entertainment package they seem to crave. Many want their biases reinforced.

We already have such an agency, it's called the FCC (Federal Communications Commission). But Ronald Reagan de-fanged it decades ago with the destruction of the Fairness Doctrine. Rather than creating the "thought police" to enforce "proper thought" as you advocate, it's better to have a fair and honest discussion of the issues, and that what the Fairness Doctrine required. It should be noted that Democrats have fought to restore the Fairness Doctrine and Republicans have successfully fought to suppress it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The best solution for misinformation is a fair and honest discussion of the facts.

 

[joepistole]

Taken from Tulsi Gabbard's website:

Pray tell, who is advocating not working with your enemy? Does working with your enemy mean jumping in bed with him? You don't have to jump in bed with your enemy to work with him. Working with your enemy doesn't mean you have to compromise your values or be flat out being stupid. Obama has worked with our enemy, i.e. your beloved Mother Putin. He did so with Iran.

But that doesn't mean Obama or the American POTUS must bless or encourage Putin's increasing militarism and aggression.

 

[joepistole]

Are you really that obtuse?
This is the link you found all the way back in post #125: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits
Now, do see in the contents where it says United States? That's what I quoted. Apparently it was rocket science...for you.

Come on comrade, be honest.

There's your faulty memory at work again (hence me trying to quote enough context to help you keep up). Remember, you erroneously thought we were talking about the Women's March. But I have no doubt that there's quite a lot doesn't make sense to you. That can happen when your memory ain't for shit.

Oh, and where did I think that comrade? You are making stuff up again.

You said, "if you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job." Since full-time is 40 hrs/wk, what else do you propose takes up that 40 hrs? I think most states only require like 3-4 applications a week...so, an hour each, including any drive time. Checking the help wanted ads...another hour for each lead? An hour interview per application? Well, we're up to about 9-12 hrs, being very generous. How do you account for the remaining 28-31 hrs?

That's a rather selective view of what I wrote. I also wrote that looking for employment involved more than just filling out applications. You seem to have this very naive view of what it is to look for work. It's more than just filling out applications. It's finding job openings. It's writing letters and modifying your resume to fit the job descriptions. It's mailing resumes. It's networking. It's preparing for and doing interviews. As I said before, when you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job.

Further, you don't know what most states require of unemployed workers, so it isn't helpful to speculate, nor is it particularly relevant. Unemployed people aren't earning money. They receive a small fraction of what they once earned. Your belief that they aren't motivated to work or look for work is incredulous. Judging by your "estimates" I guess you have never been unemployed or seriously looked for work.

I was on unemployment insurance for few weeks after being discharged from the US military back in 1975. So I do have some first hand experience, and it's an experience I'd rather not duplicate. That's the only time I have been unemployed.

LOL! Just like your thumb is a digit but not all digits are thumbs, all the unemployed could be on welfare while not everyone on welfare is unemployed. Haven't you even been going on about the work requirement for welfare? Simple reasoning skills, mate.

Well here's the thing, that's not what you said. You are moving the old proverbial goal post mate.

Apparently, "Oops. " wasn't clear enough for you. Even as a reply to your, "SSI is Supplemental Security Income; it isn't Social Security and it's funded by the general fund. It isn't a retirement fund..oops." Man, I really give you too much credit. You're the only one who mentioned "savings" (post #127), as a straw man. You even insisted on this straw man (post #131) after I asked, "Who said anything about a "savings program"?" Some intellectual honesty please. Or you can just keep arguing a point I never refuted, nor even implied. Some people enjoy hollow victories.

An ad hominen attack to cover up your screw up isn't exactly honest mate.

Further, I have quoted you. Your words indict you. While you didn't say "savings program" you said words to that effect mate. You are obfuscating mate as you are wont to do.

I guess you don't live in the US. "Drawing on Social Security" is typically how it's said. For example, my mother doesn't have to draw on her own social security, since her ex-husband died, she can draw on his social security instead. Just fucking Google it.

Oh, I live in the United States alright. I was born in the states and lived in a number of states. "Drawing down on Social Security" isn't how it's typically said, and if people say it as you did, it means they don't understand how Social Security works. It implies Social Security is a savings account, and it isn't. People use the word "draw" in reference to Social Security, and there is nothing particularly wrong with that usage. But when you include the word, down, as you did. It implies there is a limit as in an account balance, and there isn't.

 

[joepistole]

Relax Putti is gonna make things okay.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/vladimir-putin-cold-open/3457922?snl=1

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/kellyanne-conway/3457926?snl=1

 

[iceaura]

You see any pattern? Notice that Republican turn out tends to be lower than Democrat?

Trump got a fairly ordinary crowd - a little light - for a Republican.

He is, after all, a Republican - and aside from the vulgarity, a normal Republican. His policies, cabinet, etc, are all pretty much what we have come to expect from Republican Presidents since Nixon. He has fewer oil company execs and more Goldman Sachs execs, but that's his background - New York City finance.

The problem is we don't have the cushion any more, to absorb the incompetence and corruption penalty of fascism - we haven't even dug out of W's hole yet, to get back to the minimal stability Clinton somehow managed. And the Congress has been taken over. So this is probably going to be worse than Reagan, H, or W - bohica government.

 

[joepistole]

So far, I'm seeing a lot of flashy Trumpism, but I'm not seeing anything of substance in Trump's agenda. Thus far Trump has taken credit for a lot good economic numbers which occurred during Obama's administration. He has lied about things, including small things like the number of people who attended his inauguration.

Trump has increased the costs of acquiring a home for middle class and poor Americans, and he did it on day one. He made home ownership more expensive, adding hundreds of dollars to their mortgages. It was one of his first actions.

Then there is the fact Trump's closest advisers, including his campaign managers, are being investigated for possible collusion with Uncle Putti's government.

Additionally, Trump has staffed his cabinet and closest advisers with Wall Street insiders and multi-billionaires. The swamp Trump promised to drain is now in his cabinet and closest advisers. And the funny thing is, Trump's supporters remain oblivious.

And on top of that, Trump has already broken a number of his campaign promises.

1) to release his tax returns
2) the wall has become a fence
3) torture, has become meh
4) Mexico might not pay for the wall/fence whereas before it would
5) Drain the swamp
7) Moving the embassy in Israel
6) and all the other promises he has made
https://thinkprogress.org/on-his-first-day-in-office-trump-broke-34-promises-683c957286dc#.rh1io79mu

Trump didn't wait long before he began screwing the pople who voted for him. https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...ration-overturns-obama-s-fha-mortgage-fee-cut

 

[ElectricFetus]

Trump got a fairly ordinary crowd - a little light - for a Republican.

He is, after all, a Republican - and aside from the vulgarity, a normal Republican. His policies, cabinet, etc, are all pretty much what we have come to expect from Republican Presidents since Nixon. He has fewer oil company execs and more Goldman Sachs execs, but that's his background - New York City finance.

WRONG!

He is not a normal republican, he is worse! His cabinet selections are more idiotic and boneheaded than even Bush Jr! Your narrative that this is all just normal for republicans fails to take into account the fact that the lunatics have taken over, for gods sake do you think republicans would imagine themselves wanting to be friends with Putin, or trashing trade deals, or openly proclaiming the iraq war as wrong, just a few years ago?

The problem is we don't have the cushion any more, to absorb the incompetence and corruption penalty of fascism - we haven't even dug out of W's hole yet, to get back to the minimal stability Clinton somehow managed. And the Congress has been taken over. So this is probably going to be worse than Reagan, H, or W - bohica government.

Probably.

 

[iceaura]

He is not a normal republican, he is worse! His cabinet selections are more idiotic and boneheaded than even Bush Jr! Your narrative that this is all just normal for republicans fails to take into account the fact that the lunatics have taken over, for gods sake do you think republicans would imagine themselves wanting to be friends with Putin, or trashing trade deals, or openly proclaiming the iraq war as wrong, just a few years ago?

Oh, each incoming Republican from Nixon on has been a new low, and had their little quirks.
The growing fondness of Republicans for Putin is not new, and not Trump's doing - the awkward backwalking of some (not all) when Putin invaded Crimea was noted even by the mainstream US press, and it seems to have been temporary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ussias-vladimir-putin/?utm_term=.4e2db57e1ded
As far as trashing trade deals or thinking ill of Iraq, that merely awaited the blaming of a Democrat - Obama and then Clinton - for their flaws and poor outcomes. Revision of history is Republican SOP - the origin and basic nature of all these bad trade deals in Reagan's agenda and established policy and initial efforts is long gone down the rabbit hole.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Oh, each incoming Republican from Nixon on has been a new low, and had their little quirks.

I would say Bush I was an improvement over Reagan, but yeah ok, yes in general each one a new low... how low can it get?

The growing fondness of Republicans for Putin is not new, and not Trump's doing - the awkward backwalking of some (not all) when Putin invaded Crimea was noted even by the mainstream US press, and it seems to have been temporary. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ussias-vladimir-putin/?utm_term=.4e2db57e1ded

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ussias-vladimir-putin/?utm_term=.4e2db57e1ded

The NEW right wing that trump represents did not start with him, they are just in total power now!

As far as trashing trade deals or thinking ill of Iraq, that merely awaited the blaming of a Democrat - Obama and then Clinton - for their flaws and poor outcomes. Revision of history is Republican SOP - the origin and basic nature of all these bad trade deals in Reagan's agenda and established policy and initial efforts is long gone down the rabbit hole.

yeah so? Nazis hated jews, Lutherans hated jews, same thing right? Yes the new right has many things in common with the previous right wing, true that, but they also have all of these new even more horrible and insidious attitudes and ideals.

 

[Syne]

Come on comrade, be honest.

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to check the link you posted, I can only assume you're either lazy or trolling.

There's your faulty memory at work again (hence me trying to quote enough context to help you keep up). Remember, you erroneously thought we were talking about the Women's March. But I have no doubt that there's quite a lot doesn't make sense to you. That can happen when your memory ain't for shit.

Oh, and where did I think that comrade? You are making stuff up again.

"The topic under discussion is your belief that all these unemployed people showed up at the women demonstration; remember?" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-7#post-3431796
​

Easy to find when you bold the whole post.
And even then, you can't seem to remember writing it.

That's a rather selective view of what I wrote. I also wrote that looking for employment involved more than just filling out applications. You seem to have this very naive view of what it is to look for work. It's more than just filling out applications. It's finding job openings. It's writing letters and modifying your resume to fit the job descriptions. It's mailing resumes. It's networking. It's preparing for and doing interviews. As I said before, when you are unemployed, looking for work is a full-time job.

I have no doubt it takes you that long. Lack of marketable skills? Unless you care to cite something, this can only be considered personal anecdote.

Further, you don't know what most states require of unemployed workers, so it isn't helpful to speculate, nor is it particularly relevant. Unemployed people aren't earning money. They receive a small fraction of what they once earned. Your belief that they aren't motivated to work or look for work is incredulous.

Who said they weren't motivated? It's a false dilemma that they're either job hunting 40 hrs/wk or not seeking work at all. Seriously, basic reasoning skill, mate.

Judging by your "estimates" I guess you have never been unemployed or seriously looked for work.

LOL! I've taken about a year off work after leaving each of my last three jobs. I've been eligible for unemployment several times, but have always had ample savings and didn't feel I needed it. But you just keep assuming whatever makes you feel better, mate.

I was on unemployment insurance for few weeks after being discharged from the US military back in 1975. So I do have some first hand experience, and it's an experience I'd rather not duplicate. That's the only time I have been unemployed.

Maybe you should have some experience within, say, the last couple of decades...so you have some idea what you're talking about. The world's changed, mate.

Who said "welfare recipients" are all unemployed?

So you don't remember writing, "
So people collecting unemployment aren't on welfare?
Unemployment benefits are social welfare payments made by the state or other authorized bodies to unemployed people. - wiki"

LOL! Just like your thumb is a digit but not all digits are thumbs, all the unemployed could be on welfare while not everyone on welfare is unemployed. Haven't you even been going on about the work requirement for welfare? Simple reasoning skills, mate.

Well here's the thing, that's not what you said. You are moving the old proverbial goal post mate.

LOL! You quoted that whole post (#115), so clearly that is exactly what I said. You're just confused or unable to see the simple logic that all members of group A can also be members of group B while there are members of group B not in group A (nested sets).

An ad hominen attack to cover up your screw up isn't exactly honest mate.

Where's the ad hominem? All I see is your straw man. I didn't try to cover up anything, but I suppose you'd have to have an ounce of intellectual honesty to see that.

Further, I have quoted you. Your words indict you. While you didn't say "savings program" you said words to that effect mate. You are obfuscating mate as you are wont to do.

Whatever you *think* you quoted, didn't say whatever you're imagining it did. How can anyone possibly refute your delusion, right?

I guess you don't live in the US. "Drawing on Social Security" is typically how it's said. For example, my mother doesn't have to draw on her own social security, since her ex-husband died, she can draw on his social security instead. Just fucking Google it.

Oh, I live in the United States alright. I was born in the states and lived in a number of states. "Drawing down on Social Security" isn't how it's typically said, and if people say it as you did, it means they don't understand how Social Security works. It implies Social Security is a savings account, and it isn't. People use the word "draw" in reference to Social Security, and there is nothing particularly wrong with that usage. But when you include the word, down, as you did. It implies there is a limit as in an account balance, and there isn't.

Everyone can see your obvious straw man and misquote. You're not fooling anyone. You're either very addled or just trolling. I NEVER used the word "down" with respect to drawing Social Security. You're gong to have to find and quote it. But since we all know you can't, you've just proven yourself a completely dishonest.

But I'll bet that's a virtue among people like you.

 

[Syne]

It's funny. Trump lied throughout the primary, and now people act as if they're surprised he's still lying.
I guess a sucker's born every minute.

 

[iceaura]

yeah so? Nazis hated jews, Lutherans hated jews, same thing right?

Especially in the case of the Lutheran Nazis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bormann et al.

Yes the new right has many things in common with the previous right wing

Including funding sources, ideology, tactics, Party, rhetoric, online presence, media alliances, organizational continuity, and significant individual membership.

 

[joepistole]

If you don't have the intellectual honesty to check the link you posted, I can only assume you're either lazy or trolling.

"The topic under discussion is your belief that all these unemployed people showed up at the women demonstration; remember?" - http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-7#post-3431796
​

Easy to find when you bold the whole post.
And even then, you can't seem to remember writing it.

Oh I remember writing it mate. Now tell me what does that have to do with your allegation? Nothing. You either have a reading comprehension problem or are being flat out dishonest mate. Which is it?

I have no doubt it takes you that long. Lack of marketable skills? Unless you care to cite something, this can only be considered personal anecdote.

LOL...Oh more ad hominem, why am I not surprised? The fact is seeking employment isn't as easy as you seem to believe it is for all the previously mentioned reasons.

Who said they weren't motivated? It's a false dilemma that they're either job hunting 40 hrs/wk or not seeking work at all. Seriously, basic reasoning skill, mate.

Not surprisingly, you are using terms you don't understand. It isn't a false dilemma. I suggest you study up on illogical argument; while you are at it, you might want to look up a straw man. I also suggest you go back and read what I previously wrote. Where did I say they are either job hunting 40 hours/week or not seeking work at all.

I didn't. Once again for your edification: I wrote that when you are unemployed, seeking employment is a full-time job. That means you spend all your available time looking for work. That may mean 30 hours, that may mean 100 hours. Judging from your fixation with 40 hours per week I gather you were always a hourly employee.

LOL! I've taken about a year off work after leaving each of my last three jobs. I've been eligible for unemployment several times, but have always had ample savings and didn't feel I needed it. But you just keep assuming whatever makes you feel better, mate.

Did you now mate? Then you must have never had a job above that of burger flipper. Perhaps that's why your notions about job seeking are so naive and simple. I've only been eligible for unemployment benefits once.

Maybe you should have some experience within, say, the last couple of decades...so you have some idea what you're talking about. The world's changed, mate.

Things have changed, but with respect to employment, they really haven't changed that much. You still need to look for jobs. You still need a resume. You still need to do your research. You still need to prepare and do interviews. You still need to network. That hasn't changed.

LOL! You quoted that whole post (#115), so clearly that is exactly what I said. You're just confused or unable to see the simple logic that all members of group A can also be members of group B while there are members of group B not in group A (nested sets).

That's more than a little disingenuous, isn't it? There's more to the conversation. You are cherry picking and moving the goal post. Congratulations mate, your illogical arguments are growing.

Where's the ad hominem? All I see is your straw man. I didn't try to cover up anything, but I suppose you'd have to have an ounce of intellectual honesty to see that.

Whatever you *think* you quoted, didn't say whatever you're imagining it did. How can anyone possibly refute your delusion, right?

Everyone can see your obvious straw man and misquote. You're not fooling anyone. You're either very addled or just trolling. I NEVER used the word "down" with respect to drawing Social Security. You're gong to have to find and quote it. But since we all know you can't, you've just proven yourself a completely dishonest.

But I'll bet that's a virtue among people like you.

You weren't misquoted. You have made a number of errors of fact and reason, and you keep digging a deeper hole with all this obfuscation. You didn't even know the difference between SSI and Social Security. You didn't know the difference between unemployment and welfare. You have tried to weasel out your many mistakes with denials and obfuscation.

The fact is these unemployed people do not account for Obama's large inaugural crowd. The fact is unemployed people aren't hanging traveling to Washington to participate in inaugurations or other protest movements.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Especially in the case of the Lutheran Nazis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bormann et al.

Either you think all Lutherans are Nazis or what I said went over you head.

Including funding sources, ideology, tactics, Party, rhetoric, online presence, media alliances, organizational continuity, and significant individual membership.

Ideology has changed, has gone sideways, incorporating things few if any republicans would have considered just a few years ago, retracting free trade, claiming to retract the military, making insane demands like building the wall and putting Muslims on registries while at the same time saying gay marriage is a done deal.

tactics have changed, now they have gone even further at denying facts, claiming now they have alternative facts, even on the smallest subject like whose inauguration was bigger! Imagine there denialism on actual important issues, don't worry you won't need to imagine, just watch the horror unfold.

rhetoric has changed, see above.

online presence has changed, now run by trolls!

media alliance has changed, brietbart is in charge, not fox, fox has been out foxed!

I will grant you the rest.

Also once again I want to personally thank you, from the bottom of my anus, for bringing us president trump.

 

[spidergoat]

It's funny. Trump lied throughout the primary, and now people act as if they're surprised he's still lying.
I guess a sucker's born every minute.

Well we're not just going to be OK with it, fuck that.