Presidential election, 2016

[Classic-Xer]

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

[Eric the Green]

(01-05-2017, 01:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't know how you know so much about me. That has always puzzled me about you

[David Horn]

(01-04-2017, 08:07 AM)Odin Wrote: The Deep South is a hierarchical culture where "liberty" and political participation is only meant for the elites, where deep inequalities of wealth are accepted as part of life and not to be questioned. Where people are told to "know their place". That is not a culture I can respect.

It's not just the Deep South.  There is a great article in the NY Times by a guy from Iowa who finally grasped what was different about him in his own culture.  He may have a great insight here.  It seems to ring true for me.

[Eric the Green]

(01-04-2017, 04:27 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 11:38 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 04:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: But just as I would not push Johann Sebastian Bach, a part of my culture, upon black people (even if  his music is poignant and rhythmically-powerful), neither would I push his music in Appalachia. Multiculturalism, if it is to have meaning, must include respect for the home-spun culture of Appalachia and the Ozarks as well as of white cultural elites and middle-class minorities.

Isn't the fiddle a traditional instrument of Appalachia?  Bach wrote plenty of good music for the fiddle.  You don't have to push it, but there's no reason for cultural apartheid, either.

On that we agree, Warren.

I suppose Appalachians could appreciate that street violinist I posted not long ago here, playing the "Chaconne." And the famous Prelude is ubiquitous.

And the crossover goes both ways. Who could be more representative of "blue" culture than liberal activist and protest folksinger Pete Seeger from New York, who learned to play his primary instrument the banjo from his friends in Appalachia, and brought to life a lot of folk music generated in red states?

"During the summer of 1936, while traveling with his father and stepmother, Pete heard the five-string banjo for the first time at the Mountain Dance and Folk Festival in western North Carolina near Asheville, organized by local folklorist, lecturer, and traditional music performer Bascom Lamar Lunsford, whom Charles Seeger had hired for Farm Resettlement music projects.[24] The festival took place in a covered baseball field. There the Seegers:

watched square-dance teams from Bear Wallow, Happy Hollow, Cane Creek, Spooks Branch, Cheoah Valley, Bull Creek, and Soco Gap; heard the five-string banjo player Samantha Bumgarner; and family string bands, including a group of Indians from the Cherokee reservation who played string instruments and sang ballads. They wandered among the crowds who camped out at the edge of the field, hearing music being made there as well. As Lunsford's daughter would later recall, those country people "held the riches that Dad had discovered. They could sing, fiddle, pick the banjos, and guitars with traditional grace and style found nowhere else but deep in the mountains. I can still hear those haunting melodies drift over the ball park."[25]

For the Seegers, experiencing the beauty of this music firsthand was a "conversion experience". Pete was deeply affected and, after learning basic strokes from Lunsford, spent much of the next four years trying to master the five-string banjo."

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

[Classic-Xer]

(01-05-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 01:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't know how you know so much about me. That has always puzzled me about you

You are a blue recruiter. What else do I need to know about you?

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 12:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 01:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't know how you know so much about me. That has always puzzled me about you

You are a blue recruiter. What else do I need to know about you?

I haven't recruited you yet.

[Galen]

(01-06-2017, 06:00 AM)taramarie Wrote: Play nice kids!

Its an accurate description.

[Anthony '58]

Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009 through 2016 (now that the December 2016 rate is in):

2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-06-2017, 05:03 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 12:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 02:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-05-2017, 01:56 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-03-2017, 09:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Danilynn, the rural folks are responsible for the 1% OWNING OUR COUNTRY.

They put the politicians in office that made it such.

Now, just WHO is that "maligning?" Since you seem to be all in favor of the political arrangements and policies that created this condition of our country, why not then just be proud of it, and not consider it an insult? If it's what you favor, then why would you consider it "evil"?

You could follow Warren Dew's example. He just tries to argue that I and others are incorrect about those policies, and that the policies that you also favor as well as he, are correct.

You're more financially reliant (owned by as you say) on the 1% than any of us and you don't seem to realize it.

I don't know how you know so much about me. That has always puzzled me about you

You are a blue recruiter. What else do I need to know about you?

He is also a complete moron.  Not a whole lot to figure out.

(01-06-2017, 12:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 06:00 AM)taramarie Wrote: Play nice kids!

He's our resident bully.

And I write that in the context of having Classic X around here. But Classic does not really call other users here "throw-away" disparaging names even though he's a bit of a tough guy. Galen on the other hand just can't contain himself.

I see the first exchange above as typical in a broad sense.  "Blue recruiter" would be a vile stereotype.  Instead of interacting with an individual, the individual gets stereotyped as a blue recruiter and all blue recruiters are alike.  Why bother to listen to what the other guy is saying when you have him neatly stereotyped?

I've also grumbled often about extreme partisans considering extreme partisans of an opposite flavor to be stupid, insane, evil, brainwashed or otherwise incapable of sincere thought.  The 'Moron' fits into that pattern.

This isn't to say Eric doesn't do some of the same stuff.  Anyone who disagrees with him on gun policy is insane.

There isn't a lot one can do about it, but too much of the conversation around here is of this ilk.  It's not about policy, it's about silly games that allow one to disparage anyone who disagrees without actually talking about the issues.

[Galen]

(01-06-2017, 10:56 AM)Anthony Wrote: Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009 through 2016 (now that the December 2016 rate is in):

2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%

You really should take a look at the labor participation rate and the U-6 unemployment numbers.  They tell a very different story.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-06-2017, 05:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we don't need are posters playing moderator or assuming the role of therapist. You Bob or Tara are certainly not qualified for that role, as you do the same things you complain about in others. I am not qualified either, nor is anyone here. Just discuss the issues. If someone feels stereotyped, they are perfectly capable of responding and denying the label. As for someone with whom dialogue is impossible for another, there's the ignore list.

I am attracted to S&H turning theory in great part as it gives structure to how cultures and values change.  How is it that people end up fighting wars rather than finding and accepting reasonable compromise?  How is it that people from different cultures just can't understand or communicate with one another?

An important part of how crises and turnings work is the defense mechanism that protect people from considering values change.  Extreme partisans have closed minds.  They are incapable of understanding perspectives that conflict with their own.  Defense mechanisms that protect values systems include ad-homium attacks, strawman arguments, vile stereotypes, and moving conversation off issues to personal conflict.

In short, the nature of the conversations here, the amazing ability to type much while acknowledging little what the other guy is typing, is a large part of the problem.

Now, at one level, I suppose I am acting as a wannabe moderator.  I'd like more real talk, less hate.

At another level, people ought to learn how people think.  It ought to be possible to recognize when the other side is stereotyping or straw manning one's own position, when the other guy is refusing to understand what one is saying.  I assume, much of the time, when someone calls you stupid, they don't really understand what you are saying?  Much of the time they don't seem to be making an honest attempt to understand?  They almost can't.  It is traumatic to honestly reevaluate one's own values.  People will dance, shake, lie to themselves and hate rather than question what they think they know.  This is normal.  This is par for the course.  This is human.

The big step, after recognizing that the other guys aren't honoring or respecting you, is to be able to recognize the same behaviors in yourself.  It's fairly easy to see when the other guy is being irrational.  It is much harder to look into a mirror.  You are one of many who seems to avoid mirrors.

Anyway, the despicable behavior of the guys with different values is part of the problem.  So is the despicable behavior of folk with the same values.  The inability of many people to open their minds is at the core of the structure of crises.

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 06:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 05:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: What we don't need are posters playing moderator or assuming the role of therapist. You Bob or Tara are certainly not qualified for that role, as you do the same things you complain about in others. I am not qualified either, nor is anyone here. Just discuss the issues. If someone feels stereotyped, they are perfectly capable of responding and denying the label. As for someone with whom dialogue is impossible for another, there's the ignore list.

I am attracted to S&H turning theory in great part as it gives structure to how cultures and values change.  How is it that people end up fighting wars rather than finding and accepting reasonable compromise?  How is it that people from different cultures just can't understand or communicate with one another?

An important part of how crises and turnings work is the defense mechanism that protect people from considering values change.  Extreme partisans have closed minds.  They are incapable of understanding perspectives that conflict with their own.  Defense mechanisms that protect values systems include ad-homium attacks, strawman arguments, vile stereotypes, and moving conversation off issues to personal conflict.

In short, the nature of the conversations here, the amazing ability to type much while acknowledging little the other guy is typing, is a large part of the problem.

Now, at one level, I suppose I am acting as a wannabe moderator.  I'd like more real talk, less hate.

At another level, people ought to learn how people think.  It ought to be possible to recognize when the other side is stereotyping or straw manning one's own position, when the other guy is refusing to understand what one is saying.  I assume, much of the time, when someone calls you stupid, they don't really understand what you are saying?  Much of the time they don't seem to be making an honest attempt to understand?  They almost can't.  It is traumatic to honestly reevaluate one's own values.  People will dance, shake, lie to themselves and hate rather than question what they think they know.  This is normal.  This is par for the course.  This is human.

The big step, after recognizing that the other guys aren't honoring or respecting you, is to be able to recognize the same behaviors in yourself.  It's fairly easy to see when the other guy is being irrational.  It is much harder to look into a mirror.  You are one of many who seems to avoid mirrors.

Anyway, the despicable behavior of the guys with different values is part of the problem.  So is the despicable behavior of folk with the same values.  The inability of many people to open their minds is at the core of the structure of crises.

But when you stereotype me as "avoiding mirrors," when I am no different than you or anyone else in that respect, that is not displaying the kind of behavior that you recommend.

I lean toward the idea that the values (or more correctly, ideologies) is the problem; behaviors less so, especially when one is asked to assume that everyone is necessarily equal in respect to their values and ideologies. I lean toward the idea that there is right and wrong, even if I myself may not always be right.

One may be very polite, like Paul Ryan is, in the process of committing extremely destructive actions and policies. The best policies, and what they are; that is the important consideration, more than how polite you are in pushing them.

If someone here is an expert on effective communication, they can share that knowledge here. But if that person claims to be an expert, and then makes accusations against others here about their lack of communication ability, they have thus proven themselves to be no expert.

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 05:44 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 05:39 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 01:18 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 05:03 AM)Galen Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 12:47 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You are a blue recruiter. What else do I need to know about you?

He is also a complete moron.  Not a whole lot to figure out.

(01-06-2017, 12:53 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 06:00 AM)taramarie Wrote: Play nice kids!

He's our resident bully.

And I write that in the context of having Classic X around here. But Classic does not really call other users here "throw-away" disparaging names even though he's a bit of a tough guy. Galen on the other hand just can't contain himself.

I see the first exchange above as typical in a broad sense.  "Blue recruiter" would be a vile stereotype.  Instead of interacting with an individual, the individual gets stereotyped as a blue recruiter and all blue recruiters are alike.  Why bother to listen to what the other guy is saying when you have him neatly stereotyped?

I've also grumbled often about extreme partisans considering extreme partisans of an opposite flavor to be stupid, insane, evil, brainwashed or otherwise incapable of sincere thought.  The 'Moron' fits into that pattern.

This isn't to say Eric doesn't do some of the same stuff.  Anyone who disagrees with him on gun policy is insane.

There isn't a lot one can do about it, but too much of the conversation around here is of this ilk.  It's not about policy, it's about silly games that allow one to disparage anyone who disagrees without actually talking about the issues.

What we don't need are posters playing moderator or assuming the role of therapist. You Bob or Tara are certainly not qualified for that role, as you do the same things you complain about in others. I am not qualified either, nor is anyone. Just discuss the issues. If someone feels stereotyped, they are perfectly capable of responding and denying the label.

Would you say Galen was discussing the issues when he called you a complete moron? You talk about wanting to just discussing the issues but that is the point. If we are to discuss the issues we should point out that comments like "complete moron" are not adding to the discussion. Besides, Eric. You have not been paying attention to my posts lately. You wanted me to "fix my own problems" and I did. I have changed since you paid attention to my posts. I like the new change too.

OK, that's good. No, Galen was not discussing the issues. I think if someone like Galen calls someone like me a moron, that can be reported to the moderator. In my opinion it doesn't need discussion, unless perhaps the person attacked wants to respond by denying a label affixed to him/her. I've long since decided it is useless to respond to Galen's attacks against me.

I'm still not likely to pay attention to your posts for a while. But I can see them if someone else quotes them. Whether I am right or wrong, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-07-2017, 01:57 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 11:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 10:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: When Bob says  "vile stereotype" I am positive he is meaning just that. He would probably be mentioning that because of the fact it is far too often used as a way of shutting down differing opinions which do not match preconceived and concrete notions/opinions on how the country/world etc is or the way that it should be.

I'd say that's an excellent description of how Bob uses the term "vile stereotype" - as a way of shutting down conversation that doesn't confirm his prejudices.

Well lets just see what he says but I figure he is like me and uses it for all political parties and their voters.

I'd say 'stereotype' is how one might perceive a person's motives, personality and values, while a vile stereotype would be a highly negative stereotype which doesn't represent the person's view point and undercuts what the person is trying to say.  The most obvious sort of stereotype might involve use of words like 'insane' or 'moron'.  Broadly, when one presents the other guy as stupid, insane, brainwashed or otherwise incapable of rational thought, one isn't showing respect, and generally the person doing the insulting isn't making an honest attempt to understand the person being insulted.  If understanding would put one's own beliefs at risk, it becomes easier to deal with a stereotype of the person than listen to the person.

This is quite different from disagreement on issues.  One can talk about, say, gun control, disagreeing but treating the other guy with respect.  However, if anyone who disagrees with an individual gets labeled 'insane' or 'ammosexual', one has gone over into ad-hominum.  One is attributing personality traits, throwing insults, and / or attributing grotesquely false motivations rather than just disagreeing on fact or policy.  I am regularly pinned with such words, but am not greatly disturbed as I know I am quite sane, capable of interacting with society quite well, thank you.  I have no obsession with ammunition.  Sure, I have a few dozen target arrows down in the basement, but they are gathering dust.  They have a mild beauty of function and form, but they don't make me horny.  I don't bring them upstairs to show my lady friends.  Yet, my opinions on gun policy are invalid to some as I'm obviously ammosexual.

It's not profound to want to shut down a conversation that consists of one guy crying "Idiot!", while the other responds "Moron!"  "Ammosexual" is more complex, but it is still a way to attribute the other guy with entirely false motivations and thus reject what he is trying to say.  If one can shift the conversation from fact and logic to insults, one might be able to hide one's own lack of fact and logic.  It is easy to spot when the other guy is badly mangling one's own motivations.  It is harder to recognize when one is doing it one's self.

Now, 'blue recruiter' might not be a truly vile stereotype if I'm understanding now how he is using it.  I don't think anyone would deny Erik leans 'blue'.  If 'recruiter' just means one who is trying to talk folks into sharing one's world view, then we might all be recruiters to some extent by that definition.  The problem is when one starts to treat all 'blue recruiters' as alike, or lump any group of people together as sharing absurd ugly motivations and values.  If someone thinks learning another's party affiliation gives a profound detailed understanding that involves low IQ and unflattering perverted concepts of his politics, there is a problem.  

I interpreted Eric's amazement at how much was known about him as irony.  I assumed that red folk's descriptions of how Eric thinks are twisted, don't reflect Eric's actual thoughts.  In general, when someone red describes someone blue in a perversely unflattering way, I'm dubious... and vice versa.

[Odin]

(01-05-2017, 03:03 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(01-04-2017, 08:07 AM)Odin Wrote: The Deep South is a hierarchical culture where "liberty" and political participation is only meant for the elites, where deep inequalities of wealth are accepted as part of life and not to be questioned. Where people are told to "know their place". That is not a culture I can respect.

It's not just the Deep South.  There is a great article in the NY Times by a guy from Iowa who finally grasped what was different about him in his own culture.  He may have a great insight here.  It seems to ring true for me.

Link goes to an Amazon product page.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-07-2017, 04:43 AM)taramarie Wrote: Long story short it is just as I assumed. He despises ignorant and vicious labels that smear everyone  "blue" or "red" in a negative way instead of listening to individuals.

(Sound of whistle blowing.) Excessive brevity and clarity! Fifteen yards from the spot of the foul. Repeat first down.

(Hopefully she knows enough American Football to get the reference.)

[Warren Dew]

(01-07-2017, 03:33 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 03:18 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-07-2017, 01:57 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 11:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 10:03 PM)taramarie Wrote: When Bob says  "vile stereotype" I am positive he is meaning just that. He would probably be mentioning that because of the fact it is far too often used as a way of shutting down differing opinions which do not match preconceived and concrete notions/opinions on how the country/world etc is or the way that it should be.

I'd say that's an excellent description of how Bob uses the term "vile stereotype" - as a way of shutting down conversation that doesn't confirm his prejudices.

Well lets just see what he says but I figure he is like me and uses it for all political parties and their voters.

What doesn't Bob view/associate as a vile stereotype these days? Bob is associated with a political party. Bob is an older Democrat.

Yes he is a Democrat but he also seems to be in disagreement with fellow democrats too. He may have a hidden motive. Who knows. But it seems that he disagrees with extreme partisans on both sides like I do.

Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-07-2017, 01:14 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: Neither you nor Bob disagrees with leftist partisans on the issues.  Bob claims to, but when the opportunity arises, he doesn't.

You disagree with some on the left here because of personal style.  That's not the same thing as disagreeing with them on the issues.

Gun policy is my major break from the blues. I was also a Scalia fan, favoring rule of law over legislating from the bench. Broadly, I am dubious about over regulation.

But, yes, for the most part I lean heavily blue.

[Eric the Green]

(01-07-2017, 02:11 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(01-06-2017, 09:10 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: I'm dubious.  Eric?  Your thoughts?

He seemed to take it as a compliment when I conjured it up and used it as an accurate describe him/his motives  earlier. You must have missed that personal exchange between the two of us.

I don't mind Classic Xer's description of me as a blue recruiter. It would be nice if I could convince more people to my point of view. Classic says he is taking folks like me on to "open up" the discussion; in other words, to oppose points of view like mine. That seems legit for a forum discussion, although it might suggest we are too stuck in our positions.

What I pointed out to Classic, and others did as well, is the error behind his use of the term "blue recruiter." Classic assumes in his statements that anyone who supports Democrats or liberals is dependent on them, and that's the only reason we support Democrats. This is not true, and it could be taken as a "vile stereotype." THAT'S where Classic goes off the rails. But it's not so much that it's a personal insult, as it just shows his condition of being brainwashed by the same old meme; the same trickle-down libertarian economics meme that says "taxes are theft for freeloaders"-- the same meme I have been debunking here for 20 years. The SAME OLD SLOGANS that have our country completely stifled and beholden to the top 1% most wealthy people in the country. Classic Xer is just a very typical "classic" example of someone hooked on those slogans. Galen is perhaps the MOST typical, and the most dogmatic and aggressive believer.

Classic Xer, Danilynn, Warren Dew, Galen, radind, (oh, I almost forgot our new "recruit," Bronsin), and almost all other conservatives who have ever posted here are locked up in this meme to varying degrees. They are just part of the 40-plus percent of Americans hooked on this ideology. This is not a stereotype; it's a fact of our political life today. 40-plus percent of the American people, including conservatives here, are beholden to this meme. The ones here are not singled out. My "blue recruiter" position is to point out this condition and debunk it; that's about all that this "vile steroetype" of me means.

Of course, if Classic really believes that being a "blue recruiter" implies that I am being directly "paid" to be one, that is obviously false, and is just another version of his attempt to dismiss those of us on the blue side (the true-blue side) as dependent on being paid in some way, whether through government handouts or direct compensation. Sorry Classic, but I don't think anyone here (apart from Galen, perhaps) believes such a pathetically-mistaken view. It's pathetic, and rather funny.

And if anyone were really paying me to write my views here on this forum, in the hopes that I could recruit more blues, they would likely demand that I give their money back to them, given my pathetic record of successful recruitment on this forum. And that's pretty funny too.

But, I also note the fact that there ARE many RED recruiters, especially those paid or beholden to oil and fossil fuel companies to spread the lies denying the harmful and deadly climate change which these fossil fools are directly causing. I don't know if it happens here, or that Classic is one (likely not), but it does happen on other larger forums like facebook, I think. And many others with Republican views depend on these politicians to keep their taxes and regulations low so they can continue to exploit the environment, workers and consumers in order to keep their profits up.

So, like they say about people in glass houses.

[Eric the Green]

(01-06-2017, 10:56 AM)Anthony Wrote: Annual Unemployment Rates, 2009 through 2016 (now that the December 2016 rate is in):

2009: 9.3%
2010: 9.6%
2011: 8.9%
2012: 8.1%
2013: 7.4%
2014: 6.2%
2015: 5.3%
2016: 4.9%

I suspect under Trump, as under Bush, the rate will soon start going in the other direction. By 2019 it could be at least over 6% again; maybe more.