Two pieces of actual policy this week that are, of course, absurd on their face. One was passed by the House, that is trying to make it legal for your open carry permit from one state to be legal in ALL states, despite having different gun laws. Imagine if we spread this to everything. For instance, the speed limit in Montana is 80 mph. The speed limit in Minnesota is 70 mph. Should a Montana resident be able to drive 80 mph on Minnesota roads?? And this is coming from the party that has been preaching about state's rights and federalism non-stop for the past 75 years.
I totally agree with you here since I'm fairly Libertarian. The Republicans do appear to be pandering to Libertarians. I consider it lip-service similar to the Democrat pandering to ethnic minorities and immigrants. When push comes to shove neither party seems to really accomplish anything for their minority partners. They just want to seem better than the other party. Pretty f'ing cynical imo but effective...
Next week will be the end of net neutrality as well. Gee I hope Comcast is responsible. Luggage fees and throttled internet two very popular positions. tax cuts for the .1 percent. Medicare cuts. Pedophiles and sexual assaulter politicians. This is republican governance, a dystopia in itself.
Next week will be the end of net neutrality as well. Gee I hope Comcast is responsible. Luggage fees and throttled internet two very popular positions. tax cuts for the .1 percent. Medicare cuts. Pedophiles and sexual assaulter politicians. This is republican governance, a dystopia in itself.
Made possible by the Democrats holier than thou attitude in regards to social justuce, immigration and climate change. I have an idea, why not try to change things a little more slowly? Of course not, all these changes have to be immediate and Damn the torpedoes! Well enjoy the consequences...
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
I don't even know why I bother pointing out hypocritical positions among Republicans, because I have to remind myself that, by and large, they simply DON'T CARE about being seen as hypocritical. Democrats can certainly BE hypocritical, but they care much, much more about being perceived that way. When we were talking about Franken and Conyers, the statement was made that taking action to avoid being hypocritical is not, in itself, hypocritical. It at the very least reveals a level of self-awareness about your arguments.
For instance, I would venture to bet that most Roy Moore voters are against a baker having to make a cake for a gay wedding. Fine and dandy. But if you believe that, that means you think baking a cake for a gay couple is ENDORSING homosexuality. Doesn't it also stand to reason, at that point, that voting for a child molester is endorsing child molestation?? Based on their own logic towards the other issue?? How can one of these possibly be the case if the other isn't??
In most ways the economy under Trump's first term so far has done well but especially in reducing unemployment. Even the left wing had to concede that one.
Next week will be the end of net neutrality as well. Gee I hope Comcast is responsible. Luggage fees and throttled internet two very popular positions. tax cuts for the .1 percent. Medicare cuts. Pedophiles and sexual assaulter politicians. This is republican governance, a dystopia in itself.
Made possible by the Democrats holier than thou attitude in regards to social justuce, immigration and climate change. I have an idea, why not try to change things a little more slowly? Of course not, all these changes have to be immediate and Damn the torpedoes! Well enjoy the consequences...
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
The only thing I can think of when I hear this is gay marriage, because that is the major thing that happened in Obama's term. And that remains an issue I will also have zero tolerance for other opinions about. Not because of religion, but because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the lives of those who have a problem with it (not you, but undoubtedly your parents based on your info). None. Zilch. Nada. It's all concocted in their own heads. And when I hear anyone say those people should have waited longer, I ask.....when?? How many couples had to have one of their partners die while waiting to do this, losing the opportunity forever?? The problem with the "not now" argument is that, when it comes to change, it is NEVER the right time. It is never right now. You only need look at the gun argument every time there is a shooting. The argument from the right is always "it's too soon, we can't talk about it now". Because it's a tactic. They know if not now, it's never.
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
There's reason to believe the generation slightly younger than me (born after 1995) is much more conservative than their parents actually.
I don't even know why I bother pointing out hypocritical positions among Republicans, because I have to remind myself that, by and large, they simply DON'T CARE about being seen as hypocritical. Democrats can certainly BE hypocritical, but they care much, much more about being perceived that way. When we were talking about Franken and Conyers, the statement was made that taking action to avoid being hypocritical is not, in itself, hypocritical. It at the very least reveals a level of self-awareness about your arguments.
For instance, I would venture to bet that most Roy Moore voters are against a baker having to make a cake for a gay wedding. Fine and dandy. But if you believe that, that means you think baking a cake for a gay couple is ENDORSING homosexuality. Doesn't it also stand to reason, at that point, that voting for a child molester is endorsing child molestation?? Based on their own logic towards the other issue?? How can one of these possibly be the case if the other isn't??
It would be interesting if he was actually convicted of it whether or not the conservatives would still support him. There's an air of cognitive bias going on here with the religious right. It's definitely an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' kind of thinking that I don't quite understand. Conservatives are supposed to be against a strong central government (which as a self-identified conservative I am) but there seems to be a large far-right proponent for a strong central government as long as it advances their ideals. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy as far as I'm concerned...
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
There's reason to believe the generation slightly younger than me (born after 1995) is much more conservative than their parents actually.
In most ways the economy under Trump's first term so far has done well but especially in reducing unemployment. Even the left wing had to concede that one.
Actually, job growth through November of this year is the worst it has been since 2012. Numbers are Feb-Nov. of each year since Trump only took office on January 20th, thus cannot be given credit for that month (thus Obama doesn't either for this comparison):
2013: 2.04 million 2014: 2.55 million 2015: 2.24 million 2016: 1.90 million
2017: 1.70 million
Downward trend from the Obama years is already starting to take shape, to the tune of some 200,000 jobs.
Honestly, I'd argue that for the moment, the economy is exactly the same since Obama got re-elected. It isn't horrible, it isn't what Obama inherited from Bush. It's ok. But no one is getting raises. There is no real rise in the standard of living among the lower and middle class. It's just sitting there waiting for another 2008. Which is going to come, unless people think the stock market is going to go up indefinitely.
Next week will be the end of net neutrality as well. Gee I hope Comcast is responsible. Luggage fees and throttled internet two very popular positions. tax cuts for the .1 percent. Medicare cuts. Pedophiles and sexual assaulter politicians. This is republican governance, a dystopia in itself.
Made possible by the Democrats holier than thou attitude in regards to social justuce, immigration and climate change. I have an idea, why not try to change things a little more slowly? Of course not, all these changes have to be immediate and Damn the torpedoes! Well enjoy the consequences...
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
The only thing I can think of when I hear this is gay marriage, because that is the major thing that happened in Obama's term. And that remains an issue I will also have zero tolerance for other opinions about. Not because of religion, but because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the lives of those who have a problem with it (not you, but undoubtedly your parents based on your info). None. Zilch. Nada. It's all concocted in their own heads. And when I hear anyone say those people should have waited longer, I ask.....when?? How many couples had to have one of their partners die while waiting to do this, losing the opportunity forever?? The problem with the "not now" argument is that, when it comes to change, it is NEVER the right time. It is never right now. You only need look at the gun argument every time there is a shooting. The argument from the right is always "it's too soon, we can't talk about it now". Because it's a tactic. They know if not now, it's never.
That is a religious thing. I have no real problem with it as long as they don't hold themselves up as being Christians. Unless you're reading a different Bible I just don't think they're ever going to be accepted by the religious right. As a friggin' tax exemption thing and being recognized by the government as being 'married' I couldn't give two figs. If they're able to pay less money to the IRS by calling themselves married then more power to 'em.
As the article itself says, "however, this isn't too surprising, as unemployment is so low". A 16 year low actually. Although quite astute in picking out virtually the one seemingly negative area in the entire data set.
Unemployment being low is a misleading statistic, as it doesn't include people who are no longer looking for work.
Next week will be the end of net neutrality as well. Gee I hope Comcast is responsible. Luggage fees and throttled internet two very popular positions. tax cuts for the .1 percent. Medicare cuts. Pedophiles and sexual assaulter politicians. This is republican governance, a dystopia in itself.
Made possible by the Democrats holier than thou attitude in regards to social justuce, immigration and climate change. I have an idea, why not try to change things a little more slowly? Of course not, all these changes have to be immediate and Damn the torpedoes! Well enjoy the consequences...
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
The only thing I can think of when I hear this is gay marriage, because that is the major thing that happened in Obama's term. And that remains an issue I will also have zero tolerance for other opinions about. Not because of religion, but because it has absolutely ZERO effect on the lives of those who have a problem with it (not you, but undoubtedly your parents based on your info). None. Zilch. Nada. It's all concocted in their own heads. And when I hear anyone say those people should have waited longer, I ask.....when?? How many couples had to have one of their partners die while waiting to do this, losing the opportunity forever?? The problem with the "not now" argument is that, when it comes to change, it is NEVER the right time. It is never right now. You only need look at the gun argument every time there is a shooting. The argument from the right is always "it's too soon, we can't talk about it now". Because it's a tactic. They know if not now, it's never.
That is a religious thing. I have no real problem with it as long as they don't hold themselves up as being Christians. Unless you're reading a different Bible I just don't think they're ever going to be accepted by the religious right. As a friggin' tax exemption thing and being recognized by the government as being 'married' I couldn't give two figs. If they're able to pay less money to the IRS by calling themselves married then more power to 'em.
And I have NEVER advocated for religious institutions to have to be forced to perform the ceremony, and neither has anyone else. They can have any rules they want. Some Catholic churches won't marry you without dozens of hours of counseling with a priest. But the government issuing the licenses to everyone is none of any church's business. They can perform their own ceremonies and rituals before their God. No one has a problem with that. But THEY have problem with the opposite end.
As the article itself says, "however, this isn't too surprising, as unemployment is so low". A 16 year low actually. Although quite astute in picking out virtually the one seemingly negative area in the entire data set.
Unemployment being low is a misleading statistic, as it doesn't include people who are no longer looking for work.
That's exactly what the conservatives were saying the entire time Obama was president! Why do we even pay attention to the unemployment rate anymore?
As the article itself says, "however, this isn't too surprising, as unemployment is so low". A 16 year low actually. Although quite astute in picking out virtually the one seemingly negative area in the entire data set.
Unemployment being low is a misleading statistic, as it doesn't include people who are no longer looking for work.
That's exactly what the conservatives were saying the entire time Obama was president! Why do we even pay attention to the unemployment rate anymore?
The economy is just....stagnant. It has been for 5 years. It's worth remembering the precipice it was on in 2008. That wasn't an easy fix, and sure as shit wasn't an easy situation to be presented with your first day in office. Trump was just handed total normalcy. Nothing grand, but absolutely nothing catastrophic. Obama's economy reflects his demeanor in office.
You can not believe in unemployment numbers but there's still the fact that it specifies things like job growth in the manufacturing sector as well. It's hard to believe job growth wouldn't affect unemployment.
It's also worth pointing out that we haven't seen the first Republican/Trump budget yet. That is next year. Next December 9th will be a far greater indicator of what is going on. But I'm willing to concede the economy is not imploding yet, just every other aspect of governing.
You can not believe in unemployment numbers but there's still the fact that it specifies things like job growth in the manufacturing sector as well. It's hard to believe job growth wouldn't affect unemployment.
Agreed. Especially with so many boomers leaving the workforce. Unemployment will be going down regardless of what the government does or doesn't do just for that very fact.
You can not believe in unemployment numbers but there's still the fact that it specifies things like job growth in the manufacturing sector as well. It's hard to believe job growth wouldn't affect unemployment.
Agreed. Especially with so many boomers leaving the workforce. Unemployment will be going down regardless of what the government does or doesn't do just for that very fact.
Problem is then going to be what happens to average wages, since those people have been working for 45+ years and likely have a high salary. Those who replace them won't, simply based on length of time at any given job.
You can not believe in unemployment numbers but there's still the fact that it specifies things like job growth in the manufacturing sector as well. It's hard to believe job growth wouldn't affect unemployment.
Agreed. Especially with so many boomers leaving the workforce. Unemployment will be going down regardless of what the government does or doesn't do just for that very fact.
Problem is then going to be what happens to average wages, since those people have been working for 45+ years and likely have a high salary. Those who replace them won't, simply based on length of time at any given job.
That's natural though. Nobodies going to pay you a chemist's salary for flipping burgers. Its on the next generation to progress just like we had to...
You can not believe in unemployment numbers but there's still the fact that it specifies things like job growth in the manufacturing sector as well. It's hard to believe job growth wouldn't affect unemployment.
Agreed. Especially with so many boomers leaving the workforce. Unemployment will be going down regardless of what the government does or doesn't do just for that very fact.
Problem is then going to be what happens to average wages, since those people have been working for 45+ years and likely have a high salary. Those who replace them won't, simply based on length of time at any given job.
That's natural though. Nobodies going to pay you a chemist's salary for flipping burgers. Its on the next generation to progress just like we had to...
As I've argued before, the Boomers were handed (on a large scale) massive wealth stability advantages because of government assistance programs their parent's benefited from after World War 2 that simply don't exist today. The mechanisms aren't the same. The GI Bill and home loans being given away like candy to returning vets don't exist anymore.
I agree. I have to face the reality that I'm not going to able to retire in my early 50's like my parents did. I can either bitch about it and whine to the government to 'fix' things or I can deal with the new reality as best as I can. As a realist I chose option 2. A benefit of this is that unless circumstance intervenes, I'll have a lot more real wealth to leave my daughter than my parents will leave me. Consolation prize?
Incremental growth isn't going to happen.@Balrog99
When people had slaves and slaves wanted more freedom, how did that go? Do you think slave owners just handed over their rights one privilege at a time? After slaves were given their freedom after the civil war, everything was done right? Hardly, states passed restrictive voting rights, there were lynch mobs, and all kinds of crap happened and still happening. There are still people today who would restrict voting rights and other rights for black people. It's still a deadly serious issue.
How about abortion, that's been the law for years now. Surely there must be additional incremental freedoms there like the rights are opening up for more people? It's been the law for a long time but Republicans keep trying to chip away at our rights, there's anti abortion stuff in the budget Republicans are passing.
Gay people have wanted to have equality at least as far back as I remember (early 1980s). Do you think Conservatives would give these people rights, have they seemed accommodating or willing to compromise there? Hell no they are trying some dumb trick by using a cake baker to try and restrict their rights right now in front of the Supreme Court. The President's Press Secretary said the other day she would be fine if people hung "we don't serve gays" signs in their shop.
The 19th amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years giving women the right to vote. Today, they can vote but they make 80% of what a man makes at their jobs. They make up only 19% of congress, 21% in the Senate. Maybe if they ask for a little more equality it will just be handed to them, right. Alabama is about to elect as Senator a guy who thinks women should not be in politics.
Social change isn't easy and even when it is won, it's an ongoing battle against regressive people and policies to turn back the clock to the good old days. A current example is Roy Moore saying things were great when there was slavery. The people that are fat and comfortable don't want to share power. They want to conserve what's theirs and to add to what they already have. If you aren't already rich and white, you can get lost and go fly a kite. They won't give you anything. Look at the damn budget they are passing.
If you want "it", you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
The Brits ended slavery without a civil war. Just sayin...
Our country is so very young that we don't have a sense of perspective. Also, Roy Moore is one person who doesn't even speak for everybody in one relatively small state in one country. He's being blown way out of proportion because of the media. What he does affects few people in the large world. I see the big picture. The days of people like him are numbered...
I'm not surprised by good economic numbers. I predicted earlier in this thread that the numbers wouldn't change much from the tail end of the Obama years until after a year or so into Trump's term. I planned on doing a long review of a lot of metrics next January 20th, though I doubt much will change until another year, since it took roughly a year for this new tax bill to come through.
Incremental growth isn't going to happen.@Balrog99
When people had slaves and slaves wanted more freedom, how did that go? Do you think slave owners just handed over their rights one privilege at a time? After slaves were given their freedom after the civil war, everything was done right? Hardly, states passed restrictive voting rights, there were lynch mobs, and all kinds of crap happened and still happening. There are still people today who would restrict voting rights and other rights for black people. It's still a deadly serious issue.
How about abortion, that's been the law for years now. Surely there must be additional incremental freedoms there like the rights are opening up for more people? It's been the law for a long time but Republicans keep trying to chip away at our rights, there's anti abortion stuff in the budget Republicans are passing.
Gay people have wanted to have equality at least as far back as I remember (early 1980s). Do you think Conservatives would give these people rights, have they seemed accommodating or willing to compromise there? Hell no they are trying some dumb trick by using a cake baker to try and restrict their rights right now in front of the Supreme Court. The President's Press Secretary said the other day she would be fine if people hung "we don't serve gays" signs in their shop.
The 19th amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years giving women the right to vote. Today, they can vote but they make 80% of what a man makes at their jobs. They make up only 19% of congress, 21% in the Senate. Maybe if they ask for a little more equality it will just be handed to them, right. Alabama is about to elect as Senator a guy who thinks women should not be in politics.
Social change isn't easy and even when it is won, it's an ongoing battle against regressive people and policies to turn back the clock to the good old days. A current example is Roy Moore saying things were great when there was slavery. The people that are fat and comfortable don't want to share power. They want to conserve what's theirs and to add to what they already have. If you aren't already rich and white, you can get lost and go fly a kite. They won't give you anything. Look at the damn budget they are passing.
If you want "it", you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
Women vote now so the fact that they make up only roughly 20% of our lawmakers certainly can't be blamed only on men can it? If even 65% of women voted for the same candidate they'd be pretty damned hard to beat. How do you explain that?
If even 55 or 60% of women would've voted for Hillary she would have won hands down!
Incremental growth isn't going to happen.@Balrog99
When people had slaves and slaves wanted more freedom, how did that go? Do you think slave owners just handed over their rights one privilege at a time? After slaves were given their freedom after the civil war, everything was done right? Hardly, states passed restrictive voting rights, there were lynch mobs, and all kinds of crap happened and still happening. There are still people today who would restrict voting rights and other rights for black people. It's still a deadly serious issue.
How about abortion, that's been the law for years now. Surely there must be additional incremental freedoms there like the rights are opening up for more people? It's been the law for a long time but Republicans keep trying to chip away at our rights, there's anti abortion stuff in the budget Republicans are passing.
Gay people have wanted to have equality at least as far back as I remember (early 1980s). Do you think Conservatives would give these people rights, have they seemed accommodating or willing to compromise there? Hell no they are trying some dumb trick by using a cake baker to try and restrict their rights right now in front of the Supreme Court. The President's Press Secretary said the other day she would be fine if people hung "we don't serve gays" signs in their shop.
The 19th amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years giving women the right to vote. Today, they can vote but they make 80% of what a man makes at their jobs. They make up only 19% of congress, 21% in the Senate. Maybe if they ask for a little more equality it will just be handed to them, right. Alabama is about to elect as Senator a guy who thinks women should not be in politics.
Social change isn't easy and even when it is won, it's an ongoing battle against regressive people and policies to turn back the clock to the good old days. A current example is Roy Moore saying things were great when there was slavery. The people that are fat and comfortable don't want to share power. They want to conserve what's theirs and to add to what they already have. If you aren't already rich and white, you can get lost and go fly a kite. They won't give you anything. Look at the damn budget they are passing.
If you want "it", you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
Women vote now so the fact that they make up only roughly 20% of our lawmakers certainly can't be blamed only on men can it? If even 65% of women voted for the same candidate they'd be pretty damned hard to beat. How do you explain that?
If even 55 or 60% of women would've voted for Hillary she would have won hands down!
They can vote but their other rights are not there. There's still more to fight for.
Incremental growth isn't going to happen.@Balrog99
When people had slaves and slaves wanted more freedom, how did that go? Do you think slave owners just handed over their rights one privilege at a time? After slaves were given their freedom after the civil war, everything was done right? Hardly, states passed restrictive voting rights, there were lynch mobs, and all kinds of crap happened and still happening. There are still people today who would restrict voting rights and other rights for black people. It's still a deadly serious issue.
How about abortion, that's been the law for years now. Surely there must be additional incremental freedoms there like the rights are opening up for more people? It's been the law for a long time but Republicans keep trying to chip away at our rights, there's anti abortion stuff in the budget Republicans are passing.
Gay people have wanted to have equality at least as far back as I remember (early 1980s). Do you think Conservatives would give these people rights, have they seemed accommodating or willing to compromise there? Hell no they are trying some dumb trick by using a cake baker to try and restrict their rights right now in front of the Supreme Court. The President's Press Secretary said the other day she would be fine if people hung "we don't serve gays" signs in their shop.
The 19th amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years giving women the right to vote. Today, they can vote but they make 80% of what a man makes at their jobs. They make up only 19% of congress, 21% in the Senate. Maybe if they ask for a little more equality it will just be handed to them, right. Alabama is about to elect as Senator a guy who thinks women should not be in politics.
Social change isn't easy and even when it is won, it's an ongoing battle against regressive people and policies to turn back the clock to the good old days. A current example is Roy Moore saying things were great when there was slavery. The people that are fat and comfortable don't want to share power. They want to conserve what's theirs and to add to what they already have. If you aren't already rich and white, you can get lost and go fly a kite. They won't give you anything. Look at the damn budget they are passing.
If you want "it", you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
Women vote now so the fact that they make up only roughly 20% of our lawmakers certainly can't be blamed only on men can it? If even 65% of women voted for the same candidate they'd be pretty damned hard to beat. How do you explain that?
If even 55 or 60% of women would've voted for Hillary she would have won hands down!
They can vote but their other rights are not there. There's still more to fight for.
They don't seem as interested as the Democrats in fighting that battle though. How do you explain that? There's more than equality on the line here and that's why two parties don't cut it!
Women have the same legal rights as men; it's just that there other things that work for and against them. Equality of the vote doesn't necessarily mean equality in all other respects.
Comments
Edit: I'll explain my position rather than wait for a response. You all may think I'm a f'ing Nazi or whatever but I'm far more liberal than my parents were. My sister is even more conservative than I am and she's more liberal than my parents. My daughter will be far more liberal than I am and I have no problem with it. The only thing that can stop the slow progression of liberalism is liberals themselves. By pushing too Goddamned hard you're going to provoke reactionism. I'm sorry but it's the God's honest truth...
For instance, I would venture to bet that most Roy Moore voters are against a baker having to make a cake for a gay wedding. Fine and dandy. But if you believe that, that means you think baking a cake for a gay couple is ENDORSING homosexuality. Doesn't it also stand to reason, at that point, that voting for a child molester is endorsing child molestation?? Based on their own logic towards the other issue?? How can one of these possibly be the case if the other isn't??
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2017/11/08/trumps-economic-scorecard-one-year-post-election/#4541788d5e85
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/27/u-s-economy-grew-3-percent-from-july-to-september-meeting-trumps-goal/?utm_term=.54459025569d
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-democrats-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/#5dc698017878
2013: 2.04 million
2014: 2.55 million
2015: 2.24 million
2016: 1.90 million
2017: 1.70 million
Downward trend from the Obama years is already starting to take shape, to the tune of some 200,000 jobs.
Honestly, I'd argue that for the moment, the economy is exactly the same since Obama got re-elected. It isn't horrible, it isn't what Obama inherited from Bush. It's ok. But no one is getting raises. There is no real rise in the standard of living among the lower and middle class. It's just sitting there waiting for another 2008. Which is going to come, unless people think the stock market is going to go up indefinitely.
When people had slaves and slaves wanted more freedom, how did that go? Do you think slave owners just handed over their rights one privilege at a time? After slaves were given their freedom after the civil war, everything was done right? Hardly, states passed restrictive voting rights, there were lynch mobs, and all kinds of crap happened and still happening. There are still people today who would restrict voting rights and other rights for black people. It's still a deadly serious issue.
How about abortion, that's been the law for years now. Surely there must be additional incremental freedoms there like the rights are opening up for more people? It's been the law for a long time but Republicans keep trying to chip away at our rights, there's anti abortion stuff in the budget Republicans are passing.
Gay people have wanted to have equality at least as far back as I remember (early 1980s). Do you think Conservatives would give these people rights, have they seemed accommodating or willing to compromise there? Hell no they are trying some dumb trick by using a cake baker to try and restrict their rights right now in front of the Supreme Court. The President's Press Secretary said the other day she would be fine if people hung "we don't serve gays" signs in their shop.
The 19th amendment has been on the books for almost 100 years giving women the right to vote. Today, they can vote but they make 80% of what a man makes at their jobs. They make up only 19% of congress, 21% in the Senate. Maybe if they ask for a little more equality it will just be handed to them, right. Alabama is about to elect as Senator a guy who thinks women should not be in politics.
Social change isn't easy and even when it is won, it's an ongoing battle against regressive people and policies to turn back the clock to the good old days. A current example is Roy Moore saying things were great when there was slavery. The people that are fat and comfortable don't want to share power. They want to conserve what's theirs and to add to what they already have. If you aren't already rich and white, you can get lost and go fly a kite. They won't give you anything. Look at the damn budget they are passing.
If you want "it", you have to be willing to stand up for yourself.
Our country is so very young that we don't have a sense of perspective. Also, Roy Moore is one person who doesn't even speak for everybody in one relatively small state in one country. He's being blown way out of proportion because of the media. What he does affects few people in the large world. I see the big picture. The days of people like him are numbered...
If even 55 or 60% of women would've voted for Hillary she would have won hands down!