The General Election

[knapplc]

I hate to post a Facebook meme, but I actually agree with this one:

 

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

Regarding racial tensions, that's a complete joke to blame the cops for all racial tensions. With the Ferguson riots, there was ample evidence that Darren Wilson was acting in self-defense, yet the left extremists were looking for a reason to create riots, and the media (including Fox) fueled what might happen, and as the city of Ferguson was on fire, those leftists figured fueling the fire were suddenly realizing what had happened. I'm not saying every cop is innocent, and there are some dumb cops out there, but the President could have issued more harsh words to his fellow African Americans that its not ok to burn a city down in protest. When Black Lives Matter protesters were chanting they wanted dead cops, Obama sat silently and refused to condemn them. I think this article highlights those racial tensions and I frankly feel that is a big reason why Donald Trump was so successful in the primaries.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/how-obama-has-turned-back-the-clock-on-race-relations/

 

The problems in Ferguson went much deeper than the Darren Wilson incident. Once that happened and the police force there was investigated, it was revealed that there was an ongoing problem with racism within the force. This incident just brought it to the boiling point no matter if this particular incident was justified or not.

 

 

I'm sure there were deeper problems in Ferguson, just as there was a long history of violence and crime in Baltimore prior to that city erupting as well. I simply do not recall in my lifetime seeing the level of violent protests across many parts of the nation that we've had in the past few years, and race has a lot to do with that, but protests in general seems to be at a similar level now as it was back in the 1960s.

[HuskerNation1]

Another thing about the unemployment rate/underemployment rate/labor participation rate....etc.

 

I know a lot of people personally who back in 2006, they were working full time and not even questioning if they were going to retire. Then, the bottom fell out. Companies had to down size their work forces to survive. Many of these companies offered their older workers (late 50s early 60s) early retirement packages and those workers jumped on it.

 

So, not only do you have the baby boomers who are retiring at a very fast pace, but you then have a large number of early retirees that unexpectedly ended up on the other side of the participation rate but are perfectly happy doing so. Some of these people still work but maybe part time...etc which would add to the "underemployed" statistic.

 

Then...yes...you had some people who went back to college full time. Hey....if there isn't a job, I might as well be educating myself so when it all turns around, I'll be ready.

 

The labor participation rate is at "historic lows". What exactly does that mean? It's an alarming word when heard. It obviously must be a horrible situation if a stat is at "historic lows". Well, in reality, this stat means it's at the same level as 1978. Before that, it was much lower. So, yes...it could be better. But, without knowing more about what is going into the stat, I'm not going to base my voting for office on just a statistic.

 

Here is an article showing that the decline in labor participation rate is NOT due to retirees or kids staying in school longer.

 

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/record-low-labor-participation-rate-not-due-retirement-or-school-5431

 

And the entire point I was trying to make is that the real unemployment rate is much higher than what is typically consumed by the media each month. There are many more part-time workers now, and small business owners (such as my parents) are having to cut back on full-time workers in order to avoid ObamaCare regulations.

[zoogs]

During the Civil Rights movement?

 

Protests spur change. I'm not a fan of violent protests but it wouldn't exactly be fair to paint the protests of recent times all with that brush.

[HuskerNation1]

I haven't been paying much attention to the polls because we aren't even at the conventions yet, but 538 keeps pounding my Twitter timeline withe poll stuff, so I checked it out.

 

According to this poll of polls, Clinton leads Trump by about five percentage points and 538 says this seems likely to be accurate. Even Fox News and Rasmussen Reports, the only two pollsters to have Trump ahead of Clinton at any time, both show Trump now trailing.

 

I expect the polls to bounce back and forth. I just saw polling done by PPP, a Democratic outfit, that has Trump up in Florida and tied with Hillary in Pennsylvania. And the polls I've seen in the last week show that, with Johnson in the question set, it does little to change the variance between Trump and Hillary. In other words, if Johnson is getting 12%, he's pulling about half from Hillary and half from Trump.

[mrandyk]

Any chance Hillary picks Bernie as a running mate with the intention of sealing a landslide victory? Might not be who she wants as her VP but how can you turn down a 99.999% chance at the presidency with that guy on your side?

[HuskerNation1]

Any chance Hillary picks Bernie as a running mate with the intention of sealing a landslide victory? Might not be who she wants as her VP but how can you turn down a 99.999% chance at the presidency with that guy on your side?

 

Not a chance at all in my opinion. Hillary is approaching 70, and Bernie is already in his mid-70s. There has been speculation she will pick Elizabeth Warren to appease the hard left, but that would be a huge mistake I think two as Warren I believe is 66 herself. Hillary should pick someone a bit younger than her but that also can step in right away if anything should happen to her health wise. To me that exclude Cory Booker who simply is not tested enough. I keep hearing Sherrod Brown's name and that would be a good choice given he's from Ohio. Now he is 64 so not much younger than Warren, but a few years might make the appearance of a more balanced ticket age wise.

[HuskerShark]

You mean Pocahantas?

[AR Husker Fan]

 

 

 

Regarding racial tensions, that's a complete joke to blame the cops for all racial tensions. With the Ferguson riots, there was ample evidence that Darren Wilson was acting in self-defense, yet the left extremists were looking for a reason to create riots, and the media (including Fox) fueled what might happen, and as the city of Ferguson was on fire, those leftists figured fueling the fire were suddenly realizing what had happened. I'm not saying every cop is innocent, and there are some dumb cops out there, but the President could have issued more harsh words to his fellow African Americans that its not ok to burn a city down in protest. When Black Lives Matter protesters were chanting they wanted dead cops, Obama sat silently and refused to condemn them. I think this article highlights those racial tensions and I frankly feel that is a big reason why Donald Trump was so successful in the primaries.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/01/17/how-obama-has-turned-back-the-clock-on-race-relations/

 

The problems in Ferguson went much deeper than the Darren Wilson incident. Once that happened and the police force there was investigated, it was revealed that there was an ongoing problem with racism within the force. This incident just brought it to the boiling point no matter if this particular incident was justified or not.

 

 

I'm sure there were deeper problems in Ferguson, just as there was a long history of violence and crime in Baltimore prior to that city erupting as well. I simply do not recall in my lifetime seeing the level of violent protests across many parts of the nation that we've had in the past few years, and race has a lot to do with that, but protests in general seems to be at a similar level now as it was back in the 1960s.

 

Having experienced the '60s first-hand, I can assure you that what you are seeing today isn't even close to what was happening in the '60s. The '68 Democratic National Convention outbreak, the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, SDS - by today's standards they would have been considered terrorists given the level of violent protest in which they engaged. And much of that came from racial tensions - in fact, the birth of those many of those groups were directly attributable to racial tensions. There were riots in more than 100 cities after the assassination of Dr. King alone.

 

What is being experienced today doesn't even compare to what it was like in the '60s.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Another thing about the unemployment rate/underemployment rate/labor participation rate....etc.

 

I know a lot of people personally who back in 2006, they were working full time and not even questioning if they were going to retire. Then, the bottom fell out. Companies had to down size their work forces to survive. Many of these companies offered their older workers (late 50s early 60s) early retirement packages and those workers jumped on it.

 

So, not only do you have the baby boomers who are retiring at a very fast pace, but you then have a large number of early retirees that unexpectedly ended up on the other side of the participation rate but are perfectly happy doing so. Some of these people still work but maybe part time...etc which would add to the "underemployed" statistic.

 

Then...yes...you had some people who went back to college full time. Hey....if there isn't a job, I might as well be educating myself so when it all turns around, I'll be ready.

 

The labor participation rate is at "historic lows". What exactly does that mean? It's an alarming word when heard. It obviously must be a horrible situation if a stat is at "historic lows". Well, in reality, this stat means it's at the same level as 1978. Before that, it was much lower. So, yes...it could be better. But, without knowing more about what is going into the stat, I'm not going to base my voting for office on just a statistic.

Here is an article showing that the decline in labor participation rate is NOT due to retirees or kids staying in school longer.

 

http://www.economicpopulist.org/content/record-low-labor-participation-rate-not-due-retirement-or-school-5431

 

And the entire point I was trying to make is that the real unemployment rate is much higher than what is typically consumed by the media each month. There are many more part-time workers now, and small business owners (such as my parents) are having to cut back on full-time workers in order to avoid ObamaCare regulations.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the fact the actual unemployment rate is higher than the normal statistic quoted.

 

However:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/declining-labor-participation-rates/

 

Both statistics are important to tell the story.

 

Industry can only employ those who actively want a job and go find one.

[zoogs]

You mean Pocahantas?

Right on cue. Trump's teachings are really taking!

[HuskerShark]

 

You mean Pocahantas?

Right on cue. Trump's teachings are really taking!

You realize it was sarcasm right?

[zoogs]

No, I didn't. I thought you, as a clear Trump supporter, were genuinely parroting Trump's name-calling the way we've seen other Trump supporters do regularly here (remember when 'Lyin' Ted' graced this place?) in an attempt to ridicule Elizabeth Warren.

 

That seemed like a safe assumption, but if instead it was sarcasm, and you were ironically pointing out the line of attack for the empty, racially-tinged disgrace it is, then I apologize for leaping to conclusions.

[HuskerShark]

No, I didn't. I thought you, as a clear Trump supporter, were genuinely parroting Trump's name-calling the way we've seen other Trump supporters do regularly here (remember when 'Lyin' Ted' graced this place?) in an attempt to ridicule Elizabeth Warren.

 

That seemed like a safe assumption, but if instead it was sarcasm, and you were ironically pointing out the line of attack for the empty, racially-tinged disgrace it is, then I apologize for leaping to conclusions.

There was nothing racist about that comment. The lady lied about having native american heritage so she'd get special treatment at Harvard. I actually find that comment extremely funny.

[zoogs]

Hey! Back to square one. Better to own it than duck under the sarcasm card, though.

 

Try reading about it somewhere other than Breitbart and their ilk. I did think you thought that would be cheered as a sick burn, but you might find that outside of certain circles, nobody is really impressed with Trump's sophomoric bluster.