Rahm and his business

[Pete F.]

As Jim said "The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?"
How many people has the president you constantly acclaim demonized on television again and again, for doing their jobs.
I know you dont really like him

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As Jim said "The Koch Brothers have been demonized by name on the floor of congress many times. For what? Have they ever been arrested or convicted of anything? How would you like it, if a US Senator stood in front of cameras, mentioned you by name, and told America that you were the enemy?"
How many people has the president you constantly acclaim demonized on television again and again, for doing their jobs.
I know you dont really like him

if you think i constantly praise trump and never criticize him, you are hopeless, too stupid to try and talk to. it’s disgusting what he said
about the media? Fair enough? Now what do you have to say, about democrats who call out the koch brothers by name?

as to your question about blacks in hartford...local impact is far greater than federal impact. Your fellow
liberals in CT have seen to it that blacks in hartford never get anywhere, they have crippled those people
and made them addicted to liberal welfare.

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete. But if you keep fishing my questions, and you keep insisting i’m a rabid trump supporter, we should stop trying. is your reading really that bad, or are you that dishonest? i see no third option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's your problem

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

that's your problem

i have no argument against that. None.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you think i constantly praise trump and never criticize him, you are hopeless, too stupid to try and talk to. it’s disgusting what he said
about the media? Fair enough? Now what do you have to say, about democrats who call out the koch brothers by name?

as to your question about blacks in hartford...local impact is far greater than federal impact. Your fellow
liberals in CT have seen to it that blacks in hartford never get anywhere, they have crippled those people
and made them addicted to liberal welfare.

i’m trying to talk to you like an adult pete. But if you keep fishing my questions, and you keep insisting i’m a rabid trump supporter, we should stop trying. is your reading really that bad, or are you that dishonest? i see no third option.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of nasty isn’t it, when someone gets demonized for their political actions. Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling.
Tacit approval doesn’t win you any points in my book.
Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint.
What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time.
You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?
Thinking that it’s about poverty is missing the point. The middle class has been shrinking for the past 30 years.
That’s not good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Kind of nasty isn’t it, when someone gets demonized for their political actions. Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling.
Tacit approval doesn’t win you any points in my book.
Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint.
What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time.
You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?
Thinking that it’s about poverty is missing the point. The middle class has been shrinking for the past 30 years.
That’s not good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."

You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.

"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."

OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?

Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?

"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"

You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.

"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?

Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Sort of like how you keep trying to demonize me by name calling."

You constantly dodge my questions, you constantly claim that I'm a blind Trump supporter, and you constantly claim that I said things, which I would never ever say. I've pointed that stuff out to you 100 times, and you keep doing it. I don't know how to respond.

"Good luck with claiming the results are worth the taint."

OK. Let's just stick to this. So you'd rather have a sweet person as POTUS, but with bad results? Is that what you're saying?

Absolutely not, but that does not mean the bull#^&#^&#^&#^& Trump pulls and has been allowed to by the Trumplicans in Congress is acceptable to me.

Just once, JUST THIS ONE TIME, can you please answer that question exactly as I asked it?

"What the Trumplicans have done to the Republican Party will be long remembered, the stink will last a long time"

You might be right. But why did the GOP pick up Senate seats? Trump is one guy. He's not the whole party.
Trump picked up Senate seats in very red states and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020.

"You missed the unemployment statistics issue. Funny how all of the sudden the numbers became true, isn’t it. You don’t have an answer for that, do you?"

Not sure what you're saying here. If you're saying I didn't care about unemployment when Obama was POTUS, you are elying again. I've said 1,000 times that Obama gets good marks for his impact on unemployment and the stock market. So does Trump. SO please tell me what I "missed"?

Pete' let's see who is the blind partisan denier, me or you...I gave Obama credit for helping unemployment under his watch. Can you do the same with Trump? What do you have to say, about unemployment under Trump? I am curious to see how you answer that.

Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's what I was saying there, you seem to have skimmed over it the first time.
Is the low unemployment real, lets not forget trumps opinion on that prior to the election. How has the data collection or compilation changed since he was elected?
Remember, the unemployment rate comes from a separate survey than the one used to count jobs created. The former is based on a monthly survey of 60,000 households by the Census Bureau. The latter by a survey of about 149,000 businesses and government agencies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
According to the Census household survey, the biggest contribution to the drop in the unemployment rate wasn't people getting jobs — that survey registered a gain of just 3,000 in April. It's due mainly to the fact that 410,000 dropped out of the labor force — and no longer count as unemployed.

If you compare today's numbers to December 2000, the picture is even more striking.

The labor force participation rate in Dec. 2000 was 67%. Today it is just 62.8%.

The employment-to-population ratio then was 64.4%. Now it's 60.3%.

The population not in the labor force — they don't have jobs and aren't looking — has climbed a stunning 25.3 million over those years.

Think about it this way. If the labor force participation rate were the same today as it was in December 2000, the unemployment rate wouldn't be 3.9%. It would be 10%!

Yes, many who've left the labor force over the past 18 years are baby boomers entering retirement. But that doesn't come close to explaining the massive increase in labor dropouts.

For example, the labor force participation rate among 20- to 24-year-olds was 78% in December 2000. It's just 71% today. For those 25-34 years old, the rate declined from 85% to 83%.

In contrast, among those 55 and older, the participation rate increased — going from 33% in December 2000 to 40% now.

Clearly, there are still millions of potential workers sitting on the sidelines.

https://youtu.be/YVfNFJ9mUiE

you say he only picked up senate seats in very red states. if they were very red states, why did they elect democrat senators in 2012? you have to give it SOME thought, Pete.

I constantly have Obama
credit for what he did with unemployment. Trumpmis also doing good there. i’m not that kind of hypocrit
who refused to give onama credit but give trump credit. you try to paint me that way, but you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you say he only picked up senate seats in very red states. if they were very red states, why did they elect democrat senators in 2012? you have to give it SOME thought, Pete.

I constantly have Obama
credit for what he did with unemployment. Trumpmis also doing good there. i’m not that kind of hypocrit
who refused to give onama credit but give trump credit. you try to paint me that way, but you can’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as I said "and by lower margins than he was elected by, not a great thing going into 2020"

How has the unemployment data collection or analysis changed since Trump was elected?
If you do the analysis the way Trump claimed prior to election that it should be done, how do his actual employment numbers come out.