Questions for Hillary Supporters

[pinqy]

In economic terms, if you don't have a job and are not retired and not independently wealthy, you probably are not in a good way and you are looking for a job. You are also unemployed.

No, in economic terms if you are participating in the labor force and competing for jobs but do not have one, you are unemployed. It doesn't matter if you are in a good way or bad way. If you are independently wealthy and are trying to pitch a reality show based on your fabulously rich life, you are unemployed until you either get a show or stop pitching. Or you could be homeless and living out of dumpsters but if you're not trying to work, you're not unemployed.

In political terms, if you don't have a job and are not retired and not independently wealthy AND have given up all hope of ever finding a job, you may be in a bad way, but as a hopeless and depressed idle person, you are NOT unemployed.

For either case, what does hopeless and depressed have to do with anything?

There is a big difference between the political meaning of words and the actual, plain English understanding of the language.

Economic terms are not the same as plain understanding either. Plain understanding is not useful from an economic perspective because it's neither objective nor clearly defined.

If you don't have a job, you are unemployed whether you are looking for a job or not.

And whether or not you want or need a job? Whether or not you're able to work?

If you're not looking for work, you cannot be hired. So the fact that someone who is not trying to work doesn't get a job tells us what about how hard it is to get a job?

 

[yankintx]

Does the fact that foreign governments and others with business before the US Department of State while Clinton was Secretary of State contributed money to the Clinton Foundation bother you at all?

Does the fact that Hillary illegally handled classified emails on a private email server concern you at all? How about the fact that she deleted 30,000 of the emails?

Does the fact that the news media and much of the government itself is providing cover for the Clintons' misdeeds make you feel like that our entire system of government and political accountability has become corrupted?

The Clinton Foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to be channeled to Clinton Inc. Its purpose is manifestly to maintain the Clintons’ lifestyle (offices, travel, accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity, and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve the Clintons. Does this bother you at all?

Does the fact that Hillary has uttered so many obvious, stupid, and self serving lies bother you at all?

Does the fact that Hillary covered up for Bill's sexual misdeeds bother you?

Do you find it troubling that when the Clinton's left the White House in 2001 they took $190,000 in valuables, such as plates and silverware, that belonged to the American People and then later were forced to return them?

Do you find it troubling that even before Bill won the White House there was a laundry list of scandals that the Clintons were involved in while Bill was governor of Arkansas?

I am watching a report on CNN on the Clinton Foundation. Also it has been covered on MSNBC. Your claim its not being covered by a biased media is BS.

 

[roughdraft274]

And what will you think if it's not shut down? I ask because I don't think it will be.



Snopes isn't really a reliable source when it comes to Hillary.



I would think that Clinton being a lying piece of trash since before you were born would be concerning.

Are there any fact checking sites that you find reliable? Or are they all biased towards Hillary? And also, even if you find it biased, don't you think it's at least wise on your part, if you care about the truth, to go and read what they wrote and determine if the things they are presenting make sense and explain the situation honestly?

 

[code1211]

Last I checked, none of that is theft.

You're right.

It is only evidence that an agreement was struck for profit. Offer, acceptance and consideration.

The problem is that she was selling something that she didn't own.

Is there any evidence that this was done? We know that she and Bill were flat broke and in debt in 2001 because she told us this.

Now we find that she is worth more than $130 million. What is the salary of a Secretary of State? Lacking illegal and unethical actions, it sounds like she was working magic with the household budget!


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

 

[code1211]

No, in economic terms if you are participating in the labor force and competing for jobs but do not have one, you are unemployed. It doesn't matter if you are in a good way or bad way. If you are independently wealthy and are trying to pitch a reality show based on your fabulously rich life, you are unemployed until you either get a show or stop pitching. Or you could be homeless and living out of dumpsters but if you're not trying to work, you're not unemployed.

For either case, what does hopeless and depressed have to do with anything?

Economic terms are not the same as plain understanding either. Plain understanding is not useful from an economic perspective because it's neither objective nor clearly defined.

And whether or not you want or need a job? Whether or not you're able to work?

If you're not looking for work, you cannot be hired. So the fact that someone who is not trying to work doesn't get a job tells us what about how hard it is to get a job?

YOU are applying interpretations and classifications to something that is clouded by your actions.

If a person is running, he is running. If he is walking, he is walking. If he is sitting, he is sitting.

If he is unemployed, he's unemployed.

According to the BLS, in December of 2000, the ratio of employed persons to the entire population was 64.5%.

According to the BLS, in August of 2016, that same ratio is 59.7%.

I'm not real sharp when it comes to math, but that seems to be a reduction in the number of employed people of about 4.8%. That is based on the whole population which is currently about 320 million and is information published by the BLS. As it happens, the number of people that retire and the number of people that turn 18 each year is just about equal. ALL of the factors that create a person not working are probably about the same.

Using those rough numbers and some polling rules, we find that about 15 million people who were working in 2000 are not working right now. Hopefully, not the same 15 million all the time...

According to the BLS, they have left the work force meaning that they have given up all hope of finding a job they can do. I think we can assume that a few of these folks hit the lottery and some are now caring for an aged loved one and so forth... That was probably happening in 2000 as well. For the rest? Probably not good news or evidence of altruism...

No confidence, no pride and no hope. Despair is that state of mind that fosters suicide. This is a very bad thing.

Now the polling rules. With a universe of 15 million people, that is, those who are not in the labor force any more, the margin of error is just about zero.

A population without hope is the result of the administrations of the two worst presidents that have ever served hitting us back to back.

 

[Gaea]

You're right.

It is only evidence that an agreement was struck for profit. Offer, acceptance and consideration.

The problem is that she was selling something that she didn't own.

Is there any evidence that this was done? We know that she and Bill were flat broke and in debt in 2001 because she told us this.

Now we find that she is worth more than $130 million. What is the salary of a Secretary of State? Lacking illegal and unethical actions, it sounds like she was working magic with the household budget!


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

I guess that depends on if you think speeches and books are unethical ways to make money.

 

[code1211]

I guess that depends on if you think speeches and books are unethical ways to make money.

If the speeches and books are just that, like those written and delivered by Michael Chichton, then there is no problem with that.

When the purchase of the speeches and the books results in a redirection of the policy of the US or provides access to the thinking and planning of the Secretary of State, recently called pay for play, that indicates a Secretary who is selling something she does not own.

When Hillary becomes President, the international playground for Bill's proclivities and the payment for his speeches will dwarf the opportunities available when she was only the SOS.

Bill Clinton Cashed In When Hillary Became Secretary of State - ABC News
<snip>
After his wife became Secretary of State, former President Bill Clinton began to collect speaking fees that often doubled or tripled what he had been charging earlier in his post White House years, bringing in millions of dollars from groups that included several with interests pending before the State Department, an ABC News review of financial disclosure records shows.
<snip>

 

[pinqy]

YOU are applying interpretations and classifications to something that is clouded by your actions.

If a person is running, he is running. If he is walking, he is walking. If he is sitting, he is sitting.

If he is unemployed, he's unemployed.

According to the BLS, in December of 2000, the ratio of employed persons to the entire population was 64.5%.

According to the BLS, in August of 2016, that same ratio is 59.7%.

I'm not real sharp when it comes to math, but that seems to be a reduction in the number of employed people of about 4.8%. That is based on the whole population which is currently about 320 million and is information published by the BLS. As it happens, the number of people that retire and the number of people that turn 18 each year is just about equal. ALL of the factors that create a person not working are probably about the same.

Using those rough numbers and some polling rules, we find that about 15 million people who were working in 2000 are not working right now. Hopefully, not the same 15 million all the time...

According to the BLS, they have left the work force meaning that they have given up all hope of finding a job they can do. I think we can assume that a few of these folks hit the lottery and some are now caring for an aged loved one and so forth... That was probably happening in 2000 as well. For the rest? Probably not good news or evidence of altruism...

No confidence, no pride and no hope. Despair is that state of mind that fosters suicide. This is a very bad thing.

Now the polling rules. With a universe of 15 million people, that is, those who are not in the labor force any more, the margin of error is just about zero.

A population without hope is the result of the administrations of the two worst presidents that have ever served hitting us back to back.

So many issues:
Defining something by itself is not a definition. Since 1920, the U.S has defined unemployed as those not working who are looking for work.
BLS does not use the total population, but the adult civilian noninstitutional population: age 16+, not in the military or an institution (prison, mental institution, nursing home).
The number of people employed is now 14 million HIGHER than in 2000
Not in the labor force just means not working or trying to work, and is not a sign of despair or hopelessness.
Most people not in the labor force are old, disabled, students or stay home spouses.
Over 90% don't want a job now.

 

[Kobie]

Are there any fact checking sites that you find reliable? Or are they all biased towards Hillary? And also, even if you find it biased, don't you think it's at least wise on your part, if you care about the truth, to go and read what they wrote and determine if the things they are presenting make sense and explain the situation honestly?

Snopes doesn't propagate the right's favorite Hillary-as-Lucifer fairy tales; ergo, Snopes is biased toward Hillary.

 

[roughdraft274]

Snopes doesn't propagate the right's favorite Hillary-as-Lucifer fairy tales; ergo, Snopes is biased toward Hillary.

It appears so. It's just sad. One time I asked a right winger for an example of a fact checking site giving false info or twisting something and he said it's not biased cause it lies but because they are biased in what they pick to fact check lol. Ok so if that's the case then you should trust what is being said correct? "Nope! It's biased!" Utter nonsense.

 

[Kobie]

It appears so. It's just sad. One time I asked a right winger for an example of a fact checking site giving false info or twisting something and he said it's not biased cause it lies but because they are biased in what they pick to fact check lol. Ok so if that's the case then you should trust what is being said correct? "Nope! It's biased!" Utter nonsense.

So much of conservative America has been repeatedly told that everything is biased against them, so it's not particularly surprising that a staggering number of them believe it to such an absurd degree.

 

[bubbabgone]

Well now we know what Hillary's been up to since she disappeared off the public stage.
She's still been very active on her campaign.

 

[chuckiechan]

Interesting how Clinton supporters always overlook, no let me rephrase that, deny, their unscrupulous behavior.

They see it as "normal". They can't help it.

That is the problem today. A great portion of the population thinks public officials are supposed to be corrupt.

It's a scary time, indeed.

 

[code1211]

So many issues:
Defining something by itself is not a definition. Since 1920, the U.S has defined unemployed as those not working who are looking for work.
BLS does not use the total population, but the adult civilian noninstitutional population: age 16+, not in the military or an institution (prison, mental institution, nursing home).
The number of people employed is now 14 million HIGHER than in 2000
Not in the labor force just means not working or trying to work, and is not a sign of despair or hopelessness.
Most people not in the labor force are old, disabled, students or stay home spouses.
Over 90% don't want a job now.

The figure from the BLS that shows the percent of the population not employed is avery easy number to calculate. There are a given number of people in the country at any moment. There are a given number of people in the country that are employed at any given moment.

The comparison results in a ratio that is dismal.

The portion of people pulling wagon is shrinking and the portion of people riding in the wagon is growing.

Whatever other labels you might want to apply to the people in either group, there are fewer people supporting the costs and more people increasing the costs.

Justifying the growing problem does not shrink the growing problem.

Government Debt in the United States - Debt Clock

 

[pinqy]

The figure from the BLS that shows the percent of the population not employed is avery easy number to calculate. There are a given number of people in the country at any moment. There are a given number of people in the country that are employed at any given moment.

Again...the employment-population ratio uses the adult civilian noninstitutional population as the base.
In December 2000, that population was 213,736,000. There were 137,614,000 employed. 137,614,000/213,736,000 is 64.4%
In August 2016 the population was 253,854,000 and employment was 151,614,000 for a rate of 59.7%

So how did you get the idea that the number of people employed went down?

[Qukute]The comparison results in a ratio that is dismal.[/quote] And yet higher than any time before 1978.

The portion of people pulling wagon is shrinking and the portion of people riding in the wagon is growing.

Whatever other labels you might want to apply to the people in either group, there are fewer people supporting the costs and more people increasing the costs.

Justifying the growing problem does not shrink the growing problem.

Now that is all correct. But that ratio has been dropping for 16 years and was expected.

I never said it wasn't an issue, I was objecting to your false claims of dropping employment level
And hopelessness being the reason for the drop in participation.

 

[poweRob]

Interesting that a thread asking a question of Clinton supporters believes it is their duty to drop by and add their snarky comments, not towards the questions but a those answering the question. They have a name for that, let's see what was it, I think it started with a T, followed by an R, then a.......

lol... as if the OP wasn't just a snark itself.

If he really wanted to know what Hillary supporters thought he'd ask open-ended questions like "What do you think she will do with ___________" instead of phrasing them in a yes/no accusatory fashion that was clearly not to get answers from anyone but merely a way to present his own opinion.

 

[poweRob]

LOL

Welcome to the class, glad there was a seat for you.

Its the "I know you are but what am I?" retort number 85,262 from you.

 

[Absentglare]

Yes, one that was never fixed by the futile efforts of the creator of the largest ever debt racked up during any Presidential Administration.

Obama has directed the weakest and least effective recovery in our economy since WW2.

Is this all we get for our money?

Why do you switch from bashing President Bush 2 to President Obama ?

 

[poweRob]

Well now we know what Hillary's been up to since she disappeared off the public stage.
She's still been very active on her campaign.

I hate sign thieves. The only issue I take with the story is that he set up a trap which isn't karma. It may be a form of sweet justice... but not karma.

 

[bubbabgone]

I hate sign thieves. The only issue I take with the story is that he set up a trap which isn't karma. It may be a form of sweet justice... but not karma.

I guess real karma would be getting hit by a bus running away with the sign ... so let's say this is more of a compassionate karma assist.

 

[ocean515]

Its the "I know you are but what am I?" retort number 85,262 from you.

Impossible, I only have 16,200+ posts.

Can't even get your rhetoric right.

Have a nice day.

 

[code1211]

Again...the employment-population ratio uses the adult civilian noninstitutional population as the base.
In December 2000, that population was 213,736,000. There were 137,614,000 employed. 137,614,000/213,736,000 is 64.4%
In August 2016 the population was 253,854,000 and employment was 151,614,000 for a rate of 59.7%

So how did you get the idea that the number of people employed went down?

The comparison results in a ratio that is dismal.

And yet higher than any time before 1978.


Now that is all correct. But that ratio has been dropping for 16 years and was expected.

I never said it wasn't an issue, I was objecting to your false claims of dropping employment level
And hopelessness being the reason for the drop in participation.

Despite any rationalization, the number is the number.

 

[pinqy]

Despite any rationalization, the number is the number.

But you don't understand what the numbers are. Is the number of people employed now higher or lower than in 2000?

 

[code1211]

Why do you switch from bashing President Bush 2 to President Obama ?

It's difficult to define how the two differ.

Both were Political party operatives who did just about everything to advance their political futures and little for the future of the Republic.

Both ran up the debt with amazing ease and speed. It's popular to refer to both doubling the debt. Bush doubled it by adding about 5 trillion. Obama is up to about 9 trillion added, but, as Curly said, "the day ain't over, yet". He may be much better at this than we know. Obviously, he is the best in our history.

US National Debt by Year – Polidiotic

Both were globalists. Both don't seem to think there is a tomorrow. Both aren't much better than a book mark in the lexicon of the presidents. They are just about the same empty suit holding the same office of diminishing importance.

That said, though, how could anyone avoid bashing both?

 

[code1211]

But you don't understand what the numbers are. Is the number of people employed now higher or lower than in 2000?

The number employed today is higher than in 2000, December. It should be. It should be much higher than it actually is.

The Employment-Population Ratio in December 2015 was 59.5%. The Unemployment Rate was 5.0

The Employment-Population Ratio in December 2000 was 64.5%. The unemployment rate was 4.0.

The population is also higher. Comparatively higher than the number of folks employed.

The percent of people employed as a part of the whole population is down, comparing the two years, by just less than 5%.

Using December 1994 as a guideline, we see that in that month of that year, the Participation Rate was 66.6% with an Unemployment Rate of 5.6%.

The number employed in each of these Decembers is:

1994: 124,570,000

2000: 135,836,000 (plus 11,266,000 in 6 years, 1,877,000 per year.)

2015: 149,929,000 (plus 14,093,000 in 15 years, 939,000 per year.)

July 2016: 151,517,000

As a note only, the number employed in December, 2008 was 143,338,000.

There are more people not working today than ever before.