“Because in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” Ingraham said. “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”

foisted :
impose an unwelcome or unnecessary person or thing on. Had to look that one up


Seems she got the support of like minded people ... now shes trying to put as much distance between Her and Them

“I want to start by addressing my commentary at the top of last night’s show,” she said. “A message to those who are distorting my views, including all white nationalists and especially one racist freak whose name I will not even mention. You do not have my support, you don’t represent my views and you are antithetical to the beliefs I hold dear.”


Thats a hard genie to put back in the bottle ... once its out

“Because in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” Ingraham said. “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”

foisted :
impose an unwelcome or unnecessary person or thing on. Had to look that one up


Seems she got the support of like minded people ... now shes trying to put as much distance between Her and Them

“I want to start by addressing my commentary at the top of last night’s show,” she said. “A message to those who are distorting my views, including all white nationalists and especially one racist freak whose name I will not even mention. You do not have my support, you don’t represent my views and you are antithetical to the beliefs I hold dear.”


Thats a hard genie to put back in the bottle ... once its out


is what she said racist? is the shift that concerns her, racial or cultural?

i use that congressional candidate from queens as a great example. not long ago, anyone espousing those idiotic ideas would have been a laughingstock. now she’s going to congress. look at san francisco. maybe people who lived there 30 years ago, wouldn’t recognize that city today, ankle deep in needles and feces and rents that no one can afford.

it’s possible, probable in my mind, that this is the cultural shift she was referring to. and if certain ethnicities tend to embrace that culture, i join laura in being concerned about there being too many of thise people. but it’s not about skin color, it’s about culture.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Because in some parts of the country, it does seem like the America that we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” Ingraham said. “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people and they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like. From Virginia to California, we see stark examples of how radically in some ways the country has changed. Now, much of this is related to both illegal and in some cases, legal immigration that, of course, progressives love.”

foisted :
impose an unwelcome or unnecessary person or thing on. Had to look that one up


Seems she got the support of like minded people ... now shes trying to put as much distance between Her and Them

“I want to start by addressing my commentary at the top of last night’s show,” she said. “A message to those who are distorting my views, including all white nationalists and especially one racist freak whose name I will not even mention. You do not have my support, you don’t represent my views and you are antithetical to the beliefs I hold dear.”


Thats a hard genie to put back in the bottle ... once its out


in san francisco, city officials get almost 100 calls a day to remove human feces from public places. does that sound like your vision of america? it doesn’t sound like mine. she’s right, there are parts of america that don’t look like america anymore. is that a racist thing to say? is it racist for me to be disturbed about adults pooping in public, or about an ideology which celebrates that men can now go into the ladies room? that doesn’t fit my vision of america, and i don’t think sting so, means that i’m Archie Bunker.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i use that congressional candidate from queens as a great example. not long ago, anyone espousing those idiotic ideas would have been a laughingstock. now she’s going to congress.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device I use Corey Stewart from Virginia as a great example. Anyone exposing those idiotic views would have been a laughing stock years ago now he seems to be the standard-bearer for the Republican Party. In the recent special election all the candidates who agreed with her could not get elected on the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said it was about immigration Jim, not drug use. Some people are terrified about losing the white majority.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I use Corey Stewart from Virginia as a great example. Anyone exposing those idiotic views would have been a laughing stock years ago now he seems to be the standard-bearer for the Republican Party. In the recent special election all the candidates who agreed with her could not get elected on the left.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

corey stewart is the standard bearer? most people don’t know who he is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said it was about immigration Jim, not drug use. Some people are terrified about losing the white majority.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and some immigrants, not all, want to change what america looks like. did she say she was opposed to all immigration? or has she said many times that she supports legal immigration, as long as the immigrants are willing to assimilate.

i’m not a republican apologist, unlike you spence, i criticize those on my side when they have it coming. i don’t want immigrants who want to come here and make america look like the place they came from.

go take a stroll in san francisco, tell me it looks like your view of america.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

corey stewart is the standard bearer? most people don’t know who he is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He and his white nationalism certainly rile up the right to get out and vote and our president so yes he is the standard Bearer. Just because you're infatuated with her doesn't mean she's the standard Bearer as the results of last week votes clearly showed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and some immigrants, not all, want to change what america looks like. did she say she was opposed to all immigration? or has she said many times that she supports legal immigration, as long as the immigrants are willing to assimilate.

i’m not a republican apologist, unlike you spence, i criticize those on my side when they have it coming. i don’t want immigrants who want to come here and make america look like the place they came from.

go take a stroll in san francisco, tell me it looks like your view of america.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
70% of the homeless in SF were housed there and have for a number of reasons been priced out of the housing market.
What does the housing issue there have to do with immigration?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He and his white nationalism certainly rile up the right to get out and vote and our president so yes he is the standard Bearer. Just because you're infatuated with her doesn't mean she's the standard Bearer as the results of last week votes clearly showed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please show me the evidence that white nationalists have a big impact in republican voting. why did all of the republicans cheer low black unemployment at the SOTU, and why were all the democrats miserable at the news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is simple, she and many white Americans can't stand the idea that people with brown skin exist in numbers that they view threaten white power and dominance. Illegal immigration is a red herring. For many of them it is that the people have brown skin and even if they all were here legally, the discussion (as comrade orange face already brought up) would be about limiting the numbers of people coming in legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why did all of the republicans cheer low black unemployment at the SOTU, and why were all the democrats miserable at the news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Because it made them feel like they were winning, the same reason you bring it up all the time. The Democrats weren't miserable about low unemployment that is another lie of yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it made them feel like they were winning, the same reason you bring it up all the time. The Democrats weren't miserable about low unemployment that is another lie of yours.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why did the democrats sit there, miserable, when low black unemployment was announced?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

why did the democrats sit there, miserable, when low black unemployment was announced?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about because the Republicans sat there miserable for the previous 6 years as it dropped from 16% to 7%. It goes down another point after a year of trump in office with no real legislative action of his preceding it and now the Republicans want to cheer. But you knew that didn't you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is simple, she and many white Americans can't stand the idea that people with brown skin exist in numbers that they view threaten white power and dominance. Illegal immigration is a red herring. For many of them it is that the people have brown skin and even if they all were here legally, the discussion (as comrade orange face already brought up) would be about limiting the numbers of people coming in legally.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Tribalism and its dominance of territory exists everywhere on this planet that is inhabited by humans. Comparable forms of it exist even in most of the free roaming animals on this planet. You can even see the fight for territorial dominance in the plant life on this planet. Some form of dominance seems to be inherent in all living species.

Humans are able in some degree to transcend the drive to dominance. For the most part, that transcendence applies to other humans. We're not very capable of coexisting with other forms of life. We typically try to dominate any species with which we cohabit space.

Biological life exists in constant conflict, eternal war, and dominance of space to exist. Various forms from the smallest microbes to the largest mammals or trees vie for space and dominance of their territory, and usually, with some minor exceptions of symbiotic relations, do so not only by dominating their space but by consuming the energy provided by other species.

"Many white Americans," as you put it, are not so different from other color Americans in fearing their loss of power to other "tribes"--simply as a reflex of that inherent natural fear of being dominated as fodder for others, or of extinction--just as the native American Indian tribes came to realize what was happening to them as they lost dominance over their territories to another tribe. The Chinese and the Japanese tribes in their native lands protect themselves vigorously against influence of others in order to maintain their tribal integrity and power over their territory. The Middle East and Africa are still dominated by tribalism. And very violently, murderously, defending it.

But is it now still the primitive "race" tribalism that you think many white Americans have, or is it the cultural tribalism that Jim claims. The U.S. has been far more able to become racially mixed as a national tribe than most others. I suspect that Asian, African, and Middle Eastern tribalism is more racial than "Western" tribes. And that in this country, culture is more important than race. Especially so are political, religious, ideological, and class cultures the most divisive lines of tribal delineation.


For example, if immigrants would predominantly vote republican, were Christian or atheist, were ideologically classical liberal who supported constitutional conservatism, would the "many Americans" (Republicans, "conservatives," etc.) object so much against their coming here even if they were also brown. And would the supposedly brown friendly Progressives and "liberals" be all that supportive of them coming?

White black red yellow brown

We are a country of laws, without which we would be doomed. Where do you draw the line?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

White black red yellow brown

We are a country of laws, without which we would be doomed. Where do you draw the line?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Plenty of people around concerned about it from a legality standpoint. Lots more just don't want the whiteness of the country messed with and want the "great" America back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Plenty of people around concerned about it from a legality standpoint. Lots more just don't want the whiteness of the country messed with and want the "great" America back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So what? A lot of people want the whiteness to be "messed with." A lot of people don't want the legal framework that made America great. A lot of people don't want the financial burden of maintaining unemployed Americans while replacing them with lower wage immigrants or unemployed immigrants. A lot of people want to change the political, social, and cultural makeup of this country aided by unsupportable mass immigration of different cultures and political persuasion. A lot of people don't want their stuff messed with. You got a problem with that? Is everybody supposed to think like you? You got all the answers and know better what's better for everybody?

Plenty of people around concerned about it from a legality standpoint. Lots more just don't want the whiteness of the country messed with and want the "great" America back.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It just sucks to be portrayed by a certain group as a racist simply because you believe in law and order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It just sucks to be portrayed by a certain group as a racist simply because you believe in law and order.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's the perpetual narrative....

So we need to fix the immigration system.
Currently the republicans control the necessary branches of government to do it and have the master dealmaker in the Presidency.
They ought to be able to accomplish something with immigration.
Here's a plan put forth by a Republican organization
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/resources-reports/reports/immigration.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw2MTbBRASEiwAdYIpsQK PerNTp6FIwKsvwriC4E3ziaMax2zl-YvagrRpUE_RxuklnWmQSRoCFzEQAvD_BwE

there is a great story out of Chicago...no, not the 72 shootings weekend before last and probably still tallying for this past weekend...but a woman who is a notable activist for laws concerning cyclists and the safety of cyclists was run over by a woman making a U-turn....driver was here illegally, no license, no insurance.....the illegal hopped out of the car and rather than asking if the cyclist if she was ok pleading that she not be deported.....the activist got to her feet, stuck the woman back in her car, started the car for her and sent her down the road....hopefully she won't kill the next cyclist or pedestrian she runs over...the activist explained...“I am… diehard believer in justice for cyclists to the fullest extent of the law,” she wrote. But she added that she chose not to report the crash and press charges because “my silence became my only weapon against a much bigger war over invisible borders carried out and perpetuated by our careless world leaders.”

10 bucks says she has hairy arm pits and a bush you could get lost in.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There’s finally a question that stumps Kellyanne Conway: Name a high-level black person serving on President Donald Trump’s staff, now that Omarosa is out.

Conway, senior counselor to the president, struggled to name anyone who met those criteria in an appearance on ABC’s This Week with Jonathan Karl. Omarosa Manigault-Newman, who has been in the press recently promoting her new book, was abruptly fired from the White House in December. Now that she’s gone, Karl asked, who is the most prominent, high-level adviser to the president on the West Wing staff who is black? Conway struggled to answer.

She first pointed to Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, who Karl pointed out isn’t on White House staff. She then arrived at Ja’Ron Smith, special assistant to the president for domestic policy. Karl pointed out he was not in the West Wing, though he has an office in the Executive Office of the President, Conway said.

“What does that say to not have a single senior adviser in the West Wing who’s African American?” Karl asked.

“I didn’t say that there wasn’t, but hold on,” Conway said. “There are plenty of people…if you’re going by that and not by the actions of the president, which you probably should, then you should look at the fact that we have a number of different minorities, and the fact is that this president is doing well for all Americans.”

"Omarosa was the most prominent, high-level African-American serving in the West Wing on Pres. Trump's staff. Who now is that person?" @jonkarl asks Kellyanne Conway.

Here's how Conway responded https://t.co/P6iz1j1VA4 #ThisWeek pic.twitter.com/wVnz5WZ97I
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) August 12, 2018
Later in the program, former White House legislative affairs director Marc Short pointed to other White House staffers who are black, including Mary Elizabeth Taylor, who handles presidential nominations at the White House and was just announced to be an assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs. He also pointed to Smith, whose office he said is in the East Wing, and Daris Meeks, a former aide to Vice President Mike Pence who exited earlier this year.

Short conceded, however, that Manigault-Newman had a very top job. While at the White House, she earned a $179,700 annual salary, the maximum for an executive branch employee and on the same level as Conway, Steve Bannon, Don McGahn, Reince Priebus, and Sean Spicer.

And as Karl pointed out, none of the individuals Short named are among the 55 top-paid staffers in the White House. Smith, who both Conway and Short named, is listed by the White House as earning $115,000 annually.


Today’s Kellyanne Conway fiasco on TV today underscores a truth that Ja’Ron Smith’s friends have been trying to get him to leave the Trump administration for months.
— Darren Sands (@darrensands) August 12, 2018
That the Trump administration has a diversity problem isn’t shocking

President Trump has a history of racist remarks, and while he insists that he is, in fact, the “least racist” person there is (he isn’t), his administration is clearly lacking on the diversity front.

Trump’s Cabinet is the whitest, most male-dominated group since Reagan. There were seven women and 10 minorities in President Barack Obama’s first 22-member Cabinet; in Trump’s 24-member cabinet, there were four women and four minorities, according to Business Insider.

When Manigault-Newman left the White House, the Guardian’s Sabrina Siddiqui pointed out the White House had no black senior advisers in public-facing White House roles. The only high-ranking figures in the broader administration were Carson and US Surgeon General Jerome Adams.

A report from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in May found that just 8 percent of Trump’s US attorney nominees were people of color. In judgeships, 8 percent of his district court nominees and 11 percent of his circuit court picks were people of color.

And it’s not just the people Trump appoints — it’s also who he and the rest of the administration consult. A photo from the White House shared by Vice President Pence of an all-male, all-white group debating health care went viral and sparked outrage last year.


Appreciated joining @POTUS for meeting with the Freedom Caucus again today. This is it. #PassTheBill pic.twitter.com/XG6lQIy5a6
— Vice President Mike Pence (@VP) March 23, 2017
Trump, administration members, and lawmakers snapped a photo debating the administration’s zero-tolerance immigration policy and family separation in the summer. At the table were all men, all white. Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump, was apparently in the room but not at the table.



"We are keeping families together but we have to keep our borders strong. We will be overrun with crime and people that should not be in our country," the Pres told meeting with members of Congress. Said he'll sign order on families, before leaving for Minnesota this afternoon. pic.twitter.com/UztrFdqR9v
— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) June 20, 2018
Even the White House interns are overwhelmingly white.



I missed the fall intern photo, but last summer and this spring, the White House had a combined 206 interns. Among them: 3 black men. 0 black women. Out of 206. Such a toxic organization. pic.twitter.com/NLxUzdopa8
— Brandon Friedman (@BFriedmanDC) March 31, 2018
If Trump would like to further the case that he is, as he says, the “least racist” person there is, it might behoove him to add some diversity into the ranks of his administration. Even Conway, the woman who brought us “alternative facts,” couldn’t maneuver her way out of this one.

A lot of people don't want their stuff messed with. You got a problem with that? Is everybody supposed to think like you?


I do have a problem with the racist, anti-all-but-one type agenda put forth by the president, yes. It is based mostly on lies and fear. It has emboldened many lousy segments of our country. Everybody is not supposed to think like me, but luckily this forum isn't about everyone sharing how they feel and each of us patting each other on the back. Calling b.s. is what has been done for eons. I understand why a law and order person gets upset that the bigot aspect gets tied in to the discussion. The Republicans would have fixed the problem if it was just a law and order issue. They can't because their ranks are split and the law and order segment cant pass what is acceptable to them and the far right nuts will never get there agenda through. Stalemate. Some like to pretend the narrative is perpetually about racism, when racism isn't part of the story. It is part of the story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some like to pretend the narrative is perpetually about racism, when racism isn't part of the story. It is part of the story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

because you have this odd need and desire to insert it onto every story...and it's not just you but the left in general and the media...it's become a crutch and a weapon...it's obnoxious :rude::bl:

funny line on sports radio this morning "3000 reporters showed up to cover 4 white supremacists this weekend"

So we need to fix the immigration system.
Currently the republicans control the necessary branches of government to do it and have the master dealmaker in the Presidency.
They ought to be able to accomplish something with immigration.
Here's a plan put forth by a Republican organization
https://www.bushcenter.org/publications/resources-reports/reports/immigration.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw2MTbBRASEiwAdYIpsQK PerNTp6FIwKsvwriC4E3ziaMax2zl-YvagrRpUE_RxuklnWmQSRoCFzEQAvD_BwE



In-depth: Bush Institute's America's Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth
The U.S. has not passed major immigration reform legislation since the Reagan administration, and we still use standards developed in the 1960s to determine who we permit to enter the U.S. A system this outdated cannot meet the needs of our vibrant, growing 21st-century economy. Pro-growth immigration reform can raise the pace of economic growth, increase per capita GDP, and reduce the deficit.

I thought we were already raising the pace of economic growth.

We recommend:
1
Keep Our Labor Force Vibrant Through Immigration
U.S. natives are not having enough children to replace our current population, and by extension, our labor force. A shrinking population and labor force will cause our economy to contract. More immigrants are needed to keep our population, labor force, and economy vibrant and growing.

Sounds like U.S. natives are dying out. Why is that? Maybe that's the problem. Of course, if U.S. natives consider economic growth more important than their own existence, then its probably a good idea to phase themselves out and bring in immigrants to continue the American Dream and recreate a booming, vibrant economy.

2
Move to Skills-Based Immigration
Our current immigration system is overwhelmingly based on family reunification. Other developed economies, like Canada and Australia, admit immigrants primarily based on skills and education. Shifting the priority to a skills-based immigration system would allow us to get the workers we need to drive economic growth while maintaining the important family reunification component.
3

Aha! Those sneaky Bush and Cheneyite, Republican racists show their true colors. What are the great "skills" and educations that third world immigrants have to offer? Picking crops and cleaning toilets?

Overhaul the temporary work visa system
For many temporary worker visa categories, the current system is inadequate. The caps are too low to meet market demand. The process is too burdensome to make using the legal visa system worthwhile. And some categories, like seasonal agricultural worker visas, do not meet the needs of the employers seeking workers.

But if U.S. natives are dying out, wouldn't market demand shrink?

4
Find a reasonable solution for the undocumented
Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families live and work in the U.S., contributing significantly to our economy. Deporting all of them is impractical, expensive, and inhumane. A reasonable solution allowing law-abiding undocumented immigrants to live and work here legally is imperative in any serious immigration reform.

I am in awe of such humanity that relinquishes the self interest in survival and passes it on to those from other countries who wish to survive and grow. We U.S. natives are a sad lot indeed. I can understand and sympathize with those who hate us, and certainly don't respect us. And are happy to see us disappear. Who would want to emulate a system of societal suicide?

5
More legal opportunities create a more secure border
The U.S. has open jobs. Immigrants come here to fill those jobs. More legal opportunities to immigrate reduces the incentive to cross unlawfully or overstay a visa. With fewer unauthorized entries to pursue, our immigration enforcement resources can focus on the real criminals.


There is something mortally wrong with a society that loses its basic desire to exist. And is so sick, so weak, so unwilling to motivate its people to do the work that immigrants are willing to do. That is a society that is digging its grave.

In-depth: Bush Institute's America's Advantage: A Handbook on Immigration and Economic Growth
The U.S. has not passed major immigration reform legislation since the Reagan administration, and we still use standards developed in the 1960s to determine who we permit to enter the U.S. A system this outdated cannot meet the needs of our vibrant, growing 21st-century economy. Pro-growth immigration reform can raise the pace of economic growth, increase per capita GDP, and reduce the deficit.

I thought we were already raising the pace of economic growth.

We recommend:
1
Keep Our Labor Force Vibrant Through Immigration
U.S. natives are not having enough children to replace our current population, and by extension, our labor force. A shrinking population and labor force will cause our economy to contract. More immigrants are needed to keep our population, labor force, and economy vibrant and growing.

Sounds like U.S. natives are dying out. Why is that? Maybe that's the problem. Of course, if U.S. natives consider economic growth more important than their own existence, then its probably a good idea to phase themselves out and bring in immigrants to continue the American Dream and recreate a booming, vibrant economy.

2
Move to Skills-Based Immigration
Our current immigration system is overwhelmingly based on family reunification. Other developed economies, like Canada and Australia, admit immigrants primarily based on skills and education. Shifting the priority to a skills-based immigration system would allow us to get the workers we need to drive economic growth while maintaining the important family reunification component.
3

Aha! Those sneaky Bush and Cheneyite, Republican racists show their true colors. What are the great "skills" and educations that third world immigrants have to offer? Picking crops and cleaning toilets?

Overhaul the temporary work visa system
For many temporary worker visa categories, the current system is inadequate. The caps are too low to meet market demand. The process is too burdensome to make using the legal visa system worthwhile. And some categories, like seasonal agricultural worker visas, do not meet the needs of the employers seeking workers.

But if U.S. natives are dying out, wouldn't market demand shrink?

4
Find a reasonable solution for the undocumented
Nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants and their families live and work in the U.S., contributing significantly to our economy. Deporting all of them is impractical, expensive, and inhumane. A reasonable solution allowing law-abiding undocumented immigrants to live and work here legally is imperative in any serious immigration reform.

I am in awe of such humanity that relinquishes the self interest in survival and passes it on to those from other countries who wish to survive and grow. We U.S. natives are a sad lot indeed. I can understand and sympathize with those who hate us, and certainly don't respect us. And are happy to see us disappear. Who would want to emulate a system of societal suicide?

5
More legal opportunities create a more secure border
The U.S. has open jobs. Immigrants come here to fill those jobs. More legal opportunities to immigrate reduces the incentive to cross unlawfully or overstay a visa. With fewer unauthorized entries to pursue, our immigration enforcement resources can focus on the real criminals.


There is something mortally wrong with a society that loses its basic desire to exist. And is so sick, so weak, so unwilling to motivate its people to do the work that immigrants are willing to do. That is a society that is digging its grave.
And your solution?
Lock the door, require people to breed, pick your own vegetables, clean your own toilets you lazy bastards?
Perhaps you think Pol Pot had the right idea, get rid of the lazy intellectuals?
"There's what we did wrong and what we did right. The mistake is that we did some things against the people — by us and also by the enemy — but the other side, as I told you, is that without our struggle there would be no Cambodia USA right now."

funny line on sports radio this morning "3000 reporters showed up to cover 4 white supremacists this weekend"

and in the process, gave them a soapbox that reaches millions.

I prefer they live in the dark little recesses and crevices of the world, never to be taken seriously or heard from. But the media has to drag them out for the world to see just so they can go 'See, See, We told you so.....Trump"

the idiocy is astounding.

and in the process, gave them a soapbox that reaches millions.

I prefer they live in the dark little recesses and crevices of the world, never to be taken seriously or heard from. But the media has to drag them out for the world to see just so they can go 'See, See, We told you so.....Trump"

the idiocy is astounding.
If I remember correctly last years event brought out thousands, people died and the President failed a no-brainer leadership moment...you can't expect them to stay in the dark little recesses when the President is stirring the same pot.

and in the process, gave them a soapbox that reaches millions.

I prefer they live in the dark little recesses and crevices of the world, never to be taken seriously or heard from. But the media has to drag them out for the world to see just so they can go 'See, See, We told you so.....Trump"

the idiocy is astounding.

The Trump effect has shown me exactly who my friends are who harbor racist/biggoted/hateful beliefs. I do t need a stupid staged white power party to tell me that there’s people out there who think there’s too much brown in their town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and in the process, gave them a soapbox that reaches millions.

I prefer they live in the dark little recesses and crevices of the world, never to be taken seriously or heard from. But the media has to drag them out for the world to see just so they can go 'See, See, We told you so.....Trump"

the idiocy is astounding.

Did you guys know that most wouldn't show up?

Do you forget what happened 1 year ago and w/the follow up?

Did you guys know that most wouldn't show up?

Do you forget what happened 1 year ago and w/the follow up?

By follow up, do you mean the "Brown Guy" on the Boston Common that 40K+ people gathered together to call him a nazi?

Because that is part of the Idiocy that I'm referencing.

The Trump effect has shown me exactly who my friends are who harbor racist/biggoted/hateful beliefs. I do t need a stupid staged white power party to tell me that there’s people out there who think there’s too much brown in their town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So are you saying that you never knew, or even had an inkling, that your friends were like that before Trump? I call BS on that one. Sorry, they couldn't have been that close to you, or you would have known.

If I remember correctly last years event brought out thousands, people died and the President failed a no-brainer leadership moment...you can't expect them to stay in the dark little recesses when the President is stirring the same pot.

Yes it did, Yes they did, and Yes he did. And that was a big newsworthy event.

2 dozen marching on DC was a "Nothingburger" that should have been ignored. instead it was national news

So are you saying that you never knew, or even had an inkling, that your friends were like that before Trump? I call BS on that one. Sorry, they couldn't have been that close to you, or you would have known.

well...Trump was never called a racist until he opposed a democrat in an election....that's all it really takes....it's political racism for the left, created in their heads to demean idealogical opponents...they are fully invested..."if you disagree then you must be"

oooh...there's a cool rhyme they can chant at their funny hat rallies :rotf3:

So are you saying that you never knew, or even had an inkling, that your friends were like that before Trump? I call BS on that one. Sorry, they couldn't have been that close to you, or you would have known.

Call it what you want.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well...Trump was never called a racist until he opposed a democrat in an election....that's all it really takes....it's political racism for the left, created in their heads to demean idealogical opponents...they are fully invested..."if you disagree then you must be"

oooh...there's a cool rhyme they can chant at their funny hat rallies :rotf3:

Maybe they can go with "If My Hat is Pink, My Opinions Stink"

By follow up, do you mean the "Brown Guy" on the Boston Common that 40K+ people gathered together to call him a nazi?

Because that is part of the Idiocy that I'm referencing.

No, I mean President Trump refusing to specifically condemn a bunch of racists.

well...Trump was never called a racist until he opposed a democrat in an election....that's all it really takes....it's political racism for the left, created in their heads to demean idealogical opponents...they are fully invested..."if you disagree then you must be"

oooh...there's a cool rhyme they can chant at their funny hat rallies :rotf3:
A little history for you of "the least racist person you know"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race

2 dozen marching on DC was a "Nothingburger" that should have been ignored. instead it was national news
Somebody should have told the police they didn't need to show up.

A little history for you of "the least racist person you know"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race

I don't read your links :hihi:

Somebody should have told the police they didn't need to show up.

Well, Antifa still showed up, so......

I'm surprised CNN didn't run a headline that "Dozens of Police Show in Support" with pictures of them at the march. Might as well multi-task while they are at it.

I don't read your links :hihi:


1973

Discrimination charge. Donald and Fred Trump are accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by discriminating against potential minority renters. They insist they are innocent and fight the sweeping charges.

1975

DOJ settlement. The Trumps settle with the Department of Justice over housing discrimination charges, agreeing to meet certain standards while not admitting any wrongdoing.

1978

Renewed discrimination charge. The Department of Justice accuses the Trumps of continuing to discriminate in spite of their settlement.

1983

Report: disproportionately white tenants. The New York Times reports that two Trump properties have populations that are 95 percent white.

1989

Central Park Five Ads. After five young men of color — known as The Central Park Five — are arrested for a brutal attack on a jogger, Donald Trump buys full-page newspaper ads stressing law and order and urging return of the the death penalty. He writes that white, black, Hispanic and Asian families have lost a sense of security in their neighborhoods. (The five men, who Trump called “crazed misfits,” were exonerated 13 years later.)

1990

Criticizes a whites-only club. Trump tells Vanity Fair he did not want to join a Palm Beach, Florida, club because it does not allow black or Jewish members.

1992

Trump hotel penalized for discrimination. A judge rules against the Trump Plaza Hotel in New Jersey, concluding the hotel discriminated in removing a African-American dealer from a table at the request of a wealthy player.

1993

“They don’t look like Indians to me,” Trump says during a Congressional hearing when talking about Native American casino officials, accusing them of working with organized crime. He adds that political correctness have given Native American status to some people who don’t “look like Indians.”

1995

Opens racially-inclusive club. Trump turns his Mar-a-Lago resort into a private club open to Jews, African-Americans and all races, breaking with many other local elite clubs in Palm Beach, Florida.

1996

Sued by 20 African-Americans. Twenty people from Indiana sue Trump, alleging he did not make good on promises to hire a large number of local minorities for his new casino.

FEB. 14, 2000

Calls David Duke a racist. In a “Today Show” interview, Trump calls David Duke a “bigot, a racist, a problem” and separately sends a statement to the New York Times, saying the Reform Party’s inclusion of Duke makes it a party he does not want to join.

OCT. 6, 2000

Secretly funds anti-Native American ads. Trump agrees to apologize and pay a fine for secretly financing sharp ads opposing a Native American gambling proposal. The ads included pictures of syringes and cocaine and asked “Are these the new neighbors we want?”

FEB. 10, 2011

First publicly doubts Obama. Trump tells conservative CPAC that President Barack Obama’s classmates never saw him at school. Politifact rated this statement “pants on fire.”

MARCH 23, 2011

Birtherism begins. Trump goes on “The View,” says that President Obama must show his birth certificate.

APRIL 21, 2011

Questions Obama’s place at Harvard. In an interview with the Associated Press, Trump questions how President Obama got into Columbia and Harvard. Later, he tells reporters Obama should “get off the basketball court.”

MAY 9, 2011

“I am the least racist person there is,” Trump says to FOX News, pointing to the fact that an African-American won “The Apprentice.”

APRIL 14, 2011

“I have a great relationship with the blacks,” Trump tells an Albany, New York radio show.

NOV. 1, 2011

Claims there are double standards when it comes to racism. In a YouTube video (now marked private), Trump accuses Jon Stewart of racism and says there is a double standard (Stewart seemed to use a voice imitating Herman Cain).

APRIL 24, 2013

Disputes innocence of The Central Park Five. Trump tweets that a documentary about the full exoneration of the five men of color in the Central Park jogger case is “one-sided” and didn’t explain their “horrific crimes.”

APRIL 24, 2013

Calls Jon Stewart by his Jewish birth name. Trump tweets that he’s smarter than “Jonathan Leibowitz – I mean Jon Stewart …”

JUNE 5, 2013

Repeats falsehoods on minorities and crime. During the ramp-up to George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial, Trump tweets that “the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics.” This seems to come from a New York City report showing blacks and Hispanics were also the majority of crime victims. An FBI report disputes Trump’s claim nationally.

AUG. 5,

2013

Claims double-standard on “n—–”. On FOX News, Trump responds to Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel’s use of the word “cracker” for white people by saying there is unfair and greater backlash against Republicans who use “n—–” to describe black people.

JUNE 21, 2014

The Central Park Five settlement is a “disgrace,” Trump writes in an Op-Ed for the New York Daily News. He wrote that the five men falsely jailed were no “angels” and the city’s $40 million dollar settlement with them is a “heist.”

FEB. 25, 2015

Mexico “sending criminals.” Trump tweets that Mexico is corrupt and sends criminals over the U.S. border.

APRIL 28, 2015

“Thugs.” In midst of violent reaction to the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore, Trump tweets that “thugs” are happily and openly destroying the city.

JUNE 16, 2015

Mexico sending “rapists.” In the speech announcing his candidacy for president, Trump charges that Mexico is sending rapists and criminals to the U.S.

I'm starting to see the point of why the press shouldn't have wasted the time to show up at a white nationalist neo-nazi march.

Wasn't there a college student whining about something somewhere they could cover so we could discuss that here?

Wasn't there a college student whining about something somewhere they could cover so we could discuss that here?

Probably a Faux Something-ism or a Whatchama-phobe.

well...Trump was never called a racist until he opposed a democrat in an election....

You mean not since he was sued in the 70's for housing discrimination? Or not since he became the champion of birtherism? Or not since the idiocy he promoted about the Central Park assault? Pretty sure those all predate him running for anything, but that's ok. It works for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A little history for you of "the least racist person you know"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race

The vast majority of cases in your article are not racist. If you want to assume they are, that shows your predilection. The only one that comes close is the charge of "discrimination" against "potential" minority renters. Some of the entries are actually anti-racist.

You mean not since he was sued in the 70's for housing discrimination?

Discrimination and racism are not the same thing.

Or not since he became the champion of birtherism?

Birtherism is not racism.

Or not since the idiocy he promoted about the Central Park assault? Pretty sure those all predate him running for anything, but that's ok. It works for you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Idiotic opinion re trial verdicts is not racism.

Birtherism is not racism.
I'm a bit astounded you'd say something this dumb to be honest.

I'm a bit astounded you'd say something this dumb to be honest.

Stop trying to make everything about race, Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1148796]1973

I'm pretty confident that you don't read your links either...

[QUOTE=Pete F.;1148796]1973

I'm pretty confident that you don't read your links either...
But incorrect, did you think I didn’t read it because it said something that could be construed as not racist?
I think he is a con man and will do whatever serves his interests with little concern for others, so if it benefits him it works in his worldview
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do have a problem with the racist, anti-all-but-one type agenda put forth by the president, yes.

What agenda are you referring to as racist?

It is based mostly on lies and fear

Mostly? Whatever lies, or characterizations as lies, to which you refer, and whatever fear is supposedly invoked, those are standard fare in political agendas. Tools of the pernicious trade. I don't see Trump being more egregiously guilty of using those tools than were other run-of-the-mill Presidents.

It has emboldened many lousy segments of our country.

Political agendas tend to do that. Agendas to very generously help the poor encourage many to feel entitled, many to the point of being emboldened to seek forms of welfare rather than working, or to augment their income with government assistance rather than adding a part-time job, or to out and out cheat the system such as getting food stamps they don't need and selling them for profit.

Agendas to "invest" in education encourage many who aren't really college "material" to use government grants to waste the money and their time before dropping out, having lost the time they could have spent seeking employment suitable to their "skill sets."

Agendas that try to racially equalize incarceration and arrests, especially by criticizing law enforcement, embolden criminal elements and those who promote the notion of victimhood such as Black Lives Matter.

Agendas that weaken or attack our basically capitalistic economic system embolden groups like Wall Street Occupiers, or Antifa.

Agendas that weaken immigration enforcement embolden illegal immigrants.

Agendas that weaken parental control in raising children in favor of state regulation of child care and promote children's "rights" embolden children who have not yet experienced enough life and learning to "identify" as some preferable sexuality or gender.

Etc.

Everybody is not supposed to think like me, but luckily this forum isn't about everyone sharing how they feel and each of us patting each other on the back. Calling b.s. is what has been done for eons. I understand why a law and order person gets upset that the bigot aspect gets tied in to the discussion. The Republicans would have fixed the problem if it was just a law and order issue. They can't because their ranks are split and the law and order segment cant pass what is acceptable to them and the far right nuts will never get there agenda through. Stalemate. Some like to pretend the narrative is perpetually about racism, when racism isn't part of the story. It is part of the story.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is it part of the problem that when a city, like Detroit, which is overwhelmingly Black, fills the Council seats with Blacks? Fills the highest civil service positions with blacks? Is it a problem when a district is populated predominantly with Latinos that the elected politicians and board members are all Latino? Is it a problem when racial "minorities" dominate their turf and don't want to give up their domination?

Is it a problem when Asian countries or African countries, or Middle Eastern countries are dominated by their nominal races and strive to maintain that domination.

Or is it only a problem when "white" populations dominate their turf?

Where is that "part of the story" resolved the most? Can it ever be resolved? Which dominant race has ameliorated that part the most? When does that part cut both ways, or all ways?

My wife and I this past Sunday went to a Chautauqua community in Ohio. It was a great place to visit. A grand old 19th century hotel on the lake where we had a fabulous brunch and could see Lake Erie on the veranda. A beach where people swam and sunbathed and children frolicked, and off of which people boated and fished. It was a beautiful mix of mostly old and really old, but also newer architecture and expensive houses and lots of places to visit and shop. And this one is fairly "liberal." Our host was very Progressive. On the tour of the neighborhood, one of the houses had a sign in front which I had time, as we were driving by, to read only two of a list of politically correct things: "There is no illegal human being," and "Black Lives Matter." Do you know how many Blacks I saw boating, sunbathing, frolicking, shopping or just living there? ZERO.

What percentage of your population in that great Progressive North East is black?

I know, I know, you are not racists there. You are "liberal." You are Progressive. Skin color is not part of the problem with you. I'm not going to ask you the impertinent question, "how happy would you be if 80 to 90 percent of your population was black?" I know that you would resoundingly say that you would be perfectly happy. You are not racists. But what if the question were "How happy would you be if that 80 to 90 percent black population always voted for Republicans of the "conservative" stripe? Voted for all the things you think are stupid, foolish, and destructive of what you think made America great, destructive of your notion that the Constitution is a living breathing document that can be "interpreted" by personal opinion of what is good and right and voted for those who would appoint textual originalists?" And I certainly won't ask you if it would be a good and happy thing if your culture of "whiteness"--restaurants, movies, music, clothing styles, low crime rates, whatever, were replaced by a Detroit state of mind.

These are embarrassing questions. They can put people ill at ease. We like to think of ourselves as good people. We feel we harbor no ill will toward others who are different. We are egalitarian.

Are we really? Some white guys 250 years ago wrote a governing system that would create a country in which everyone is equal before the law. But they had no pretension that we are all equal in any other way.

Trying to achieve outcomes of equality in any other way besides before the law is not only destructive of that old governing system, it is destructive of actual individual rights and individual differences in favor of those ever conflicting group rights. That "part of the story," racism, is exacerbated, enlarged, and made impossible to solve at the collective or tribal level. We can far more easily live peacefully and productively together as individuals than we can as different tribes.

That old piece of paper, that never breathed a breath nor lived a life, but was always merely and fully law gives us the blueprint for the union of individuals, all equal before it, and under it, and abolishes the problem of race.

David Duke was even thrilled with Ingram speech.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That old piece of paper, that never breathed a breath nor lived a life, but was always merely and fully law gives us the blueprint for the union of individuals, all equal before it, and under it, and abolishes the problem of race.

Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

Do you honestly think the founders considered non whites or women when the wrote the constitution ... I say no why would they thats not how the world worked then ... to me this is the issue with originalist he U.S. Constitution is 229 years old the world changes but people still want a 299 year old interpretation in 2018

That old piece of paper, that never breathed a breath nor lived a life, but was always merely and fully law gives us the blueprint for the union of individuals, all equal before it, and under it, and abolishes the problem of race.

It doesn't abolish race. It abolishes the problem of race before the law--only before the law. The crux of the Constitution, and of the founding, is INDIVIDUAL liberty. Not group rights

Nowhere in the Constitution—or in the Declaration of Independence, for that matter—are human beings classified according to race, skin color, or ethnicity (nor, one should add, sex, religion, or any other of the left’s favored groupings). Our founding principles are colorblind (although our history, regrettably, has not been).

Our founding rests on the principles in order to correct the foibles of history.

Do you honestly think the founders considered non whites or women when the wrote the constitution ... I say no why would they thats not how the world worked then ... to me this is the issue with originalist he U.S. Constitution is 229 years old the world changes but people still want a 299 year old interpretation in 2018

Our Founders considered individual liberty. They did not all have the same beliefs and convictions about societal norms. Being students of history, they understood that norms change. A contextual originalist does not adhere strictly to "intent." The Founders may have had different intents. But for whomever they intended their Constitution to apply, what matters to the textual originalist is the text and the original meaning of its words. Its principles of equality before the law and of individual freedom are derived from the Constitution's text today, or tommorow.

The Trump effect has shown me exactly who my friends are who harbor racist/biggoted/hateful beliefs. I do t need a stupid staged white power party to tell me that there’s people out there who think there’s too much brown in their town.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not too much non-white. too much of the wrong kind of non-white, which want to transform the country to look like Venezuela. If that's racist, I'm racist too..

Yes it did, Yes they did, and Yes he did. And that was a big newsworthy event.

2 dozen marching on DC was a "Nothingburger" that should have been ignored. instead it was national news

It's a news story that there are 24 white racists out there. We didn't know that until now? 24 people, whew, we better get cracking down on that movement Then Antifa showed up dressed like ninjas and started rioting.

It's a news story that there are 24 white racists out there. We didn't know that until now? 24 people, whew, we better get cracking down on that movement Then Antifa showed up dressed like ninjas and started rioting.
There’s more on this site. :hidin:


I’m totally trolling. 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a news story that there are 24 white racists out there.

And you think Ocasio is "a moron?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you think Ocasio is "a moron?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This made me laugh it was so spot on.

And you think Ocasio is "a moron?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she makes it pretty clear. now she thinks there are 500 million americans, and that 40% of us, 200 million, make less than 20k. many falsehoods. and she has an economics degree from BU. Yeesh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This made me laugh it was so spot on.

you struggle to differentiate between what’s moronic, and what you really really don’t want to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she makes it pretty clear. now she thinks there are 500 million americans, and that 40% of us, 200 million, make less than 20k. many falsehoods. and she has an economics degree from BU. Yeesh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well at least you got my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well at least you got my point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i got your point. it’s very easy to lob baseless insults. a lot harder to tell me i’m wrong when i say that she’s a moron. make fun of me for saying it all day long, but maybe eventually you can tell me why i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i got your point. it’s very easy to lob baseless insults. a lot harder to tell me i’m wrong when i say that she’s a moron. make fun of me for saying it all day long, but maybe eventually you can tell me why i’m wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
A moron is a stupid person. I don't think she's stupid, she graduated with honors from a good university. She's just an inexperienced politician who likely doesn't get the hate machine trying to oppose her.

For 28 she's doing pretty well.

A moron is a stupid person. I don't think she's stupid, she graduated with honors from a good university. She's just an inexperienced politician who likely doesn't get the hate machine trying to oppose her.

For 28 she's doing pretty well.

she thinks socialism will work despite its track record, she thinks low unemployment is bad because it means we all work too hard, and she thinks college should be free. she is breathtakingly stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she thinks socialism will work despite its track record, she thinks low unemployment is bad because it means we all work too hard, and she thinks college should be free. she is breathtakingly stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I don't think even Democratic Socialists want Russian style Socialism. The low unemployment remark is really about low wage growth which is real. As for college being free, we do need to innovate here.

I don't think even Democratic Socialists want Russian style Socialism. The low unemployment remark is really about low wage growth which is real. As for college being free, we do need to innovate here.

i don’t think she wants russian socialism either. but what she wants, can’t work with 300 million people, and even less likely if we had 500 million as she thinks we do.

spare me your apologist bullsh*t, just for once, about what the remark was about. she so dumb, she thinks low unemployment can only be achieved by “everybody working two jobs”, and therefore its bad. and i’m supposed to be impressed that she has an economics degree from BU?

funny, but you aren’t telling anyone that they misinterpreted laura ingrahams comments, her comments are to be taken literally. but when this village idiot puts her foot in her mouth, we should ignore it and focus on what she really meant, which of course is brilliant.

liberal=good, conservative=bad, no exceptions, ever.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she thinks socialism will work despite its track record, she thinks low unemployment is bad because it means we all work too hard, and she thinks college should be free. she is breathtakingly stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Look at what you said here. You need to stop throwing stones. If you think she means low unemployment is bad because it means we all work to hard... then I am not lobbing baseless insults. You just misinterpret what she meant. Maybe if you stopped referring to someone who by all measures (other than a few misstatements as a person in her twenties) appears at least as smart and successful as you, then you open yourself up to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think she was trying to say people are working, sure, but making ends meet is increasingly harder. This isn't the ranting of a moron. The data on wage growth, inflation and income inequality is pretty clear.

Look at what you said here. You need to stop throwing stones. If you think she means low unemployment is bad because it means we all work to hard... then I am not lobbing baseless insults. You just misinterpret what she meant. Maybe if you stopped referring to someone who by all measures (other than a few misstatements as a person in her twenties) appears at least as smart and successful as you, then you open yourself up to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she said low unemployment is achieved by people working more than one job. that’s not how it’s calculated. if i take a part time job in addition to my full time job, does the unemployment rate decrease? no, because my employment status hasn’t changed. i was emoyednwhen i had one job, also employed after i take a second job. she thinks that if one person takes all the jobs in the economy, that unemployment is zero. that’s next generation stupidity. it’s not a misstatement. she thinks low unemployment is bad. her words, not mine. oh, and free college!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think she was trying to say people are working, sure, but making ends meet is increasingly harder. This isn't the ranting of a moron. The data on wage growth, inflation and income inequality is pretty clear.

fine then i think laura ingraham was trying to say that legal immigration is good when the immigrants are willing to assimilate. but you won’t guve her the benefit of that doubt, only liberals get that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she said low unemployment is achieved by people working more than one job. that’s not how it’s calculated. if i take a part time job in addition to my full time job, does the unemployment rate decrease? no, because my employment status hasn’t changed. i was emoyednwhen i had one job, also employed after i take a second job. she thinks that if one person takes all the jobs in the economy, that unemployment is zero. that’s next generation stupidity. it’s not a misstatement. she thinks low unemployment is bad. her words, not mine. oh, and free college!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is a bunch of rambling you did there. We have already established that she was wrong about how low unemployment is calculated. You say her words, not yours, yet nothing you wrote were her words in any sense. That is just odd. A key statement, actually her words , was “Because we look at these figures and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low, everything is fine, right?’ " Her point was that the low numbers make people think everything is fine. She actually said those words. Your implication is that she thinks high unemployment is better. She never said or implied that. She believes, as Dorito Don did until the day after the election, that the unemployment rate can misconstrue people's experiences in the job market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is a bunch of rambling you did there. We have already established that she was wrong about how low unemployment is calculated. You say her words, not yours, yet nothing you wrote were her words in any sense. That is just odd. A key statement, actually her words , was “Because we look at these figures and we say, ‘Oh, unemployment is low, everything is fine, right?’ " Her point was that the low numbers make people think everything is fine. She actually said those words. Your implication is that she thinks high unemployment is better. She never said or implied that. She believes, as Dorito Don did until the day after the election, that the unemployment rate can misconstrue people's experiences in the job market.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she said unemployment is low because we’re all working two jobs. those are her words, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy, name one person who said low unemployment means everything is fine? she, like you, doesn’t want to concede the positives about trump, and she’s willing to fabricate jibberish to downplay the benefits of the positive things he’s done. it’s not rational. trump is a scumbag, but he’s helping the economy. why can’t you accept that? bill clinton was also a reptile and boy did he help the economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

zimmy, name one person who said low unemployment means everything is fine? she, like you, doesn’t want to concede the positives about trump, and she’s willing to fabricate jibberish to downplay the benefits of the positive things he’s done. it’s not rational. trump is a scumbag, but he’s helping the economy. why can’t you accept that? bill clinton was also a reptile and boy did he help the economy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What a weird response. You distort what she says, then basically admit she is right and everybody knows that what she said is true, then go off kilter in some other direction about me accepting trump is helping the economy? WTH dude?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she said unemployment is low because we’re all working two jobs. those are her words, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, she never said low unemployment is bad. You said those were her words. That is a lie.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For 28 she's doing pretty well.

yeah...she's been an adult for two whole years....

What a weird response. You distort what she says, then basically admit she is right and everybody knows that what she said is true, then go off kilter in some other direction about me accepting trump is helping the economy? WTH dude?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t distort anything, how can an exact quote be a distortion. are you distorting what laura ingraham said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t distort anything, how can an exact quote be a distortion. are you distorting what laura ingraham said?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you high?
You keep rehashing that she said unemployment was affected by how many jobs people work. I have repeatedly agreed she was wrong about that. That wasn't what I have been discussing here. You are wrong that she said low unemployment is bad. She didn't. You said that those were her words " low unemployment is bad." You lie about that so you change to a different aspect of what she said. She is clearly light years above both of us on the intelligence scale given the amount of time I waste on this insanity with you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You finally admit it's a waste of time. Very coherent post for a change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You finally admit it's a waste of time. Very coherent post for a change.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Inability to understand on your part does not equal in-coherency on my part, small one :thanks:

Inability to understand on your part does not equal in-coherency on my part



you've used this one before:uhuh:

you've used this one before:uhuh:

Yes. It is a necessary theme in this bastion of Mensa stars.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device