If you try to impeach Trump, the American people will not stand for it

[hazlnut]

Those "American" People don't matter (bigots, homophobes, KKK)...

They're not even real Americans anymore.

 

[Dale Smith]

Those "American" People don't matter (bigots, homophobes, KKK)...

They're not even real Americans anymore.

Ahhh yes, those that are not on board with the queer agenda, don't want open borders are not "American" in your beady little eyes. Those that are not all about the "collective" that believe in unalienable rights are just obstructing the commie leftard faction from achieving their little commie utopia. I actually had a debate with someone on FB that was trying to convince me that the type of communism that they want to put in place is nothing like what is in China and the old U.S.S.R.......un-friggin' real.

 

[rightwinger]

No, you flaming moron. The "not in labor force" is not just folks who "dropped out." It's the number of people, age 16 and over, who are not in the work force. There are roughly 4 million teenagers who turn 16 every year. Every one who either doesn't have a job, or is not actively looking for one, would be considered "not in the labor force" though they were never in the labor force to begin with. And you idiotically categorize people who were never in the labor force as those who "dropped out."

The only possible way for that number to be so low is if people gave up looking for work, or did drop out. If you tell the survey people you are out of work and looking for a job, that counts in the unemployment rate. If you tell them you are not working nor looking for a job, you dropped out of the labor participation force and are not considered unemployed. That's one of the reasons the unemployment rate dropped like it did, yet no economic activity to reflect that rate.

No it's not. You're just too retarded to comprehend there are multiple reasons for people to not be in the workforce -- one of which, includes people 16 and over who never held a job or looked for one. You know, what you idiotically refer to as "dropping out" of something they were never in.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Are you complaining about the 95 million who are not in the workforce under today's Republicans?

Why aren't they doing anything about it?

Trump is trying to do something about it. In 2014, it was estimated that all new jobs created during DumBama's time equaled the amount of illegals that entered this country. Stopping that will be a big help.

Lower taxes means more business will stay here, and quite possibly bring some back. So jobs are part of the answer, the other part is getting all these people off of social programs so they have to go work.

What legislation has Trump passed?
Illegals are not counted as out of the workforce. There were one million fewer illegals at the end of Obama's presidency

95 million are without a job, why hasn't Trump done anything?

Lower taxes mean business just keeps the extra money. If there is a market for additional product......business would already be filling it

 

[j-mac]

The only possible way for that number to be so low is if people gave up looking for work, or did drop out. If you tell the survey people you are out of work and looking for a job, that counts in the unemployment rate. If you tell them you are not working nor looking for a job, you dropped out of the labor participation force and are not considered unemployed. That's one of the reasons the unemployment rate dropped like it did, yet no economic activity to reflect that rate.

No it's not. You're just too retarded to comprehend there are multiple reasons for people to not be in the workforce -- one of which, includes people 16 and over who never held a job or looked for one. You know, what you idiotically refer to as "dropping out" of something they were never in.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Are you complaining about the 95 million who are not in the workforce under today's Republicans?

Why aren't they doing anything about it?

Trump is trying to do something about it. In 2014, it was estimated that all new jobs created during DumBama's time equaled the amount of illegals that entered this country. Stopping that will be a big help.

Lower taxes means more business will stay here, and quite possibly bring some back. So jobs are part of the answer, the other part is getting all these people off of social programs so they have to go work.

What legislation has Trump passed?
Illegals are not counted as out of the workforce. There were one million fewer illegals at the end of Obama's presidency

95 million are without a job, why hasn't Trump done anything?

Lower taxes mean business just keeps the extra money. If there is a market for additional product......business would already be filling it

I guess 120 or so days and the entire agenda is supposed to be filled and done....Wow....That would be amazing...Too bad it's not realistic.

 

[rightwinger]

No it's not. You're just too retarded to comprehend there are multiple reasons for people to not be in the workforce -- one of which, includes people 16 and over who never held a job or looked for one. You know, what you idiotically refer to as "dropping out" of something they were never in.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Are you complaining about the 95 million who are not in the workforce under today's Republicans?

Why aren't they doing anything about it?

Trump is trying to do something about it. In 2014, it was estimated that all new jobs created during DumBama's time equaled the amount of illegals that entered this country. Stopping that will be a big help.

Lower taxes means more business will stay here, and quite possibly bring some back. So jobs are part of the answer, the other part is getting all these people off of social programs so they have to go work.

What legislation has Trump passed?
Illegals are not counted as out of the workforce. There were one million fewer illegals at the end of Obama's presidency

95 million are without a job, why hasn't Trump done anything?

Lower taxes mean business just keeps the extra money. If there is a market for additional product......business would already be filling it

I guess 120 or so days and the entire agenda is supposed to be filled and done....Wow....That would be amazing...Too bad it's not realistic.

Obama did it

Why haven't the Republicans passed a single piece of significant legislation?

How are they doing on that balanced budget amendment?

 

[j-mac]

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Are you complaining about the 95 million who are not in the workforce under today's Republicans?

Why aren't they doing anything about it?

Trump is trying to do something about it. In 2014, it was estimated that all new jobs created during DumBama's time equaled the amount of illegals that entered this country. Stopping that will be a big help.

Lower taxes means more business will stay here, and quite possibly bring some back. So jobs are part of the answer, the other part is getting all these people off of social programs so they have to go work.

What legislation has Trump passed?
Illegals are not counted as out of the workforce. There were one million fewer illegals at the end of Obama's presidency

95 million are without a job, why hasn't Trump done anything?

Lower taxes mean business just keeps the extra money. If there is a market for additional product......business would already be filling it

I guess 120 or so days and the entire agenda is supposed to be filled and done....Wow....That would be amazing...Too bad it's not realistic.

Obama did it

Why haven't the Republicans passed a single piece of significant legislation?

How are they doing on that balanced budget amendment?

What does a balanced budget amendment have to do with this topic? '

As for legislation, the house has passed their HC reform, how long did it take demo's? 17 months?

Come off it man...Things are going along....

 

[Pogo]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Here comes another one, just like the other one:

Which POTUS sold an Iraq war, with full-on cheerleading by the media?
(note: two answers on this one, check all that apply)

Mythbusters, at your service.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

 

[edward37]

If you try to impeach Trump, the American people will not stand for it

The people who would impeach Trump are those in the House of Representatives. There are only 435 people in the United States who can impeach Trump and then another 100 who can carry out the impeachment. The other 326,625,256 Americans have absolutely no say in or ability to impeach the President.

Are you advocating taking up arms against Congress if they are to impeach?

Great way of getting rid of more Repub scum Lincoln did a half job

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The only possible way for that number to be so low is if people gave up looking for work, or did drop out. If you tell the survey people you are out of work and looking for a job, that counts in the unemployment rate. If you tell them you are not working nor looking for a job, you dropped out of the labor participation force and are not considered unemployed. That's one of the reasons the unemployment rate dropped like it did, yet no economic activity to reflect that rate.

No it's not. You're just too retarded to comprehend there are multiple reasons for people to not be in the workforce -- one of which, includes people 16 and over who never held a job or looked for one. You know, what you idiotically refer to as "dropping out" of something they were never in.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Are you complaining about the 95 million who are not in the workforce under today's Republicans?

Why aren't they doing anything about it?

Trump is trying to do something about it. In 2014, it was estimated that all new jobs created during DumBama's time equaled the amount of illegals that entered this country. Stopping that will be a big help.

Lower taxes means more business will stay here, and quite possibly bring some back. So jobs are part of the answer, the other part is getting all these people off of social programs so they have to go work.

What legislation has Trump passed?
Illegals are not counted as out of the workforce. There were one million fewer illegals at the end of Obama's presidency

95 million are without a job, why hasn't Trump done anything?

Lower taxes mean business just keeps the extra money. If there is a market for additional product......business would already be filling it

No, lower taxes means that businesses have one less reason to leave. Outsourcing and automation are the two biggest job killers in the US.

High deportation figures are misleading

Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
By JULIA PRESTONAPRIL 16, 2014

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/...in-last-five-years.html?ref=juliapreston&_r=1

What is with you on the left that thinks Trump will do everything he said he would do in a couple of months? He tried to get money for the wall, but the Democrats stopped him promising a government shutdown. He got a great judge on the Supreme Court which the Democrats also tried to stop. He tried to get healthcare reform passed but some Republicans didn't like the plan so they are working on that now. For other things, leftist activist judges got in his way.

Trump is doing fine, but with all the obstruction by the left delays things quite a bit.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Here comes another one, just like the other one:

Which POTUS sold an Iraq war, with full-on cheerleading by the media?
(note: two answers on this one, check all that apply)

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Byron York Actually that's funny enough right there.
However I'm afraid you just gave us a measurement of Rump, not a measurement of media.
What's it supposed to do --- make stuff up so it artificially reaches a 50-50 level?

Your own link there will state, flat-out, that although the common myth is "Liburul media", the actual bias is to the negative.

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<

--- that's directly from the study York links.​

Negativity sells. That's been known for longer than you and I have been alive. Put together.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Here comes another one, just like the other one:

Which POTUS sold an Iraq war, with full-on cheerleading by the media?
(note: two answers on this one, check all that apply)

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Byron York Actually that's funny enough right there.
However I'm afraid you just gave us a measurement of Rump, not a measurement of media.
What's it supposed to do --- make stuff up so it artificially reaches a 50-50 level?

Your own link there will state, flat-out, that although the common myth is "Liburul media", the actual bias is to the negative.

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<

--- that's directly from the study York links.​

Negativity sells. That's been known for longer than you and I have been alive. Put together.

Oh, so the source is the problem? I'll fix that. How about a Harvard study between Trump and DumBama?

Harvard study examines media coverage of Trump — and the results will blow you away

 

[j-mac]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

93%! Wow! That's not Journalism, that's propaganda....Worthy of Pravda.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Here comes another one, just like the other one:

Which POTUS sold an Iraq war, with full-on cheerleading by the media?
(note: two answers on this one, check all that apply)

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

Byron York Actually that's funny enough right there.
However I'm afraid you just gave us a measurement of Rump, not a measurement of media.
What's it supposed to do --- make stuff up so it artificially reaches a 50-50 level?

Your own link there will state, flat-out, that although the common myth is "Liburul media", the actual bias is to the negative.

>> Presidents are more than the main focus of U.S. reporters. Presidents are also their main target. Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative.[22] News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way.[23] Journalists’ incentives, everything from getting their stories on the air to acquiring a reputation as a hard-hitting reporter, encourage journalists to focus on what’s wrong with politicians rather than what’s right.[24] <<

--- that's directly from the study York links.​

Negativity sells. That's been known for longer than you and I have been alive. Put together.

Oh, so the source is the problem? I'll fix that. How about a Harvard study between Trump and DumBama?

Harvard study examines media coverage of Trump — and the results will blow you away

Yyyyeah I believe that's the same source I just quoted.

We did this during the week when another poster tried to sell this as "Harvard study shows Liberals are lemmings". Even though neither is mentioned in it.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

93%! Wow! That's not Journalism, that's propaganda....Worthy of Pravda.

Is it?

What if the news that exists ----------- IS 93% negative? You'd have to make up bullshit to get it to 50-50.

Journalism is not about manufacturing a 50-50.

 

[j-mac]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

93%! Wow! That's not Journalism, that's propaganda....Worthy of Pravda.

Is it?

What if the news that exists ----------- IS 93% negative? You'd have to make up bullshit to get it to 50-50.

Journalism is not about manufacturing a 50-50.

You seriously can not believe that what the media is doing now, acting as unabashed liberal attack dogs, that it has anything to do with 'journalism'....?

When you watch a Sunday show, and the panel is 4 liberal democrats, and 1 establishment republican...When you don't see one redeeming story on any of the liberal outlets, after the last 8 years of what you would say as FNC doing that to Obama, but now it's all good because what? You don't like who they are attacking?

Man, way to be consistent.

 

[edward37]

I don't know where you've been living, but in the US, the media is always against a Republican President.

Which POTUS got the Iran hostages freed?

Now which POTUS did the media imply did it?

Finally -- which one was the Republican?

Mythbusters, at your service.

Here you go myth busters:

Byron York: Harvard study: CNN, NBC Trump coverage 93 percent negative

93%! Wow! That's not Journalism, that's propaganda....Worthy of Pravda.

Is it?

What if the news that exists ----------- IS 93% negative? You'd have to make up bullshit to get it to 50-50.

Journalism is not about manufacturing a 50-50.

You seriously can not believe that what the media is doing now, acting as unabashed liberal attack dogs, that it has anything to do with 'journalism'....?

When you watch a Sunday show, and the panel is 4 liberal democrats, and 1 establishment republican...When you don't see one redeeming story on any of the liberal outlets, after the last 8 years of what you would say as FNC doing that to Obama, but now it's all good because what? You don't like who they are attacking?

Man, way to be consistent.

Consistent?? Trump is a complete AH You want outlets to praise him?

 

[Flopper]

It's not made up
Those are undisputed facts.

Russians hacked DNC servers and leaked information. At the time of the leaks, Trump representatives were meeting with the Russians

Trump had no inside information on the DNC or the server.....but did he offer something in return for help in winning an election?
If he did, it is treason

That is why we need an investigation

There is no evidence that anything that took place had an impact on the election. What had an impact on the election was Hillary's drunkenness that prohibited her from campaigning and making stops, the border, and her Deplorable remark. Bet you can't find one person who voted that knew what was in those emails, and even if you could, find one that said it changed their mind to vote for Trump instead of Hillary.

It's all made up. There is nothing there. Can you tell me why they locked up Rich's computer? Can you tell me why they stopped investigating the murder? Can you tell me why he was killed and nothing was stolen from him? Just a coincidence?

That's what they should be investigating.

You miss the point

Was there collusion?
if there was....it is treason

Do you agree?
If Trump traded concessions in return for help winning an election?

You don't investigate something based on what people make up in their heads. You investigate when there is some kind of evidence that something was done illegally. There is nothing.....not even a smidgen of evidence that Trump had anything to do with the Russians.

That would be similar if you lived down the street from me, and I went to the police and said I think you're a murderer. No body, no evidence, no names, just I decided that you were. Do you think the police department would send their detectives out to investigate you based on something I made up in my head?

True, but that evidence may not be known to the public. It is not uncommon for the FBI to conduct investigations without any public knowledge of any evidence of a crime. In the files on the fourth floor of the J. Edgar Hoover Building, there are records of thousands of investigation carried out in secret by the FBI. Usually if there is insufficient evidence to prosecute after the investigation completes, the bureau will close the investigation with no report to the public. Only in high profile cases, such as the Clinton email investigation does the FBI make a report public.

In high profile investigations such the Russian interference in the election and the Clinton email investigation, there are always leaks creating a media frenzy. Congressional investigations put pressure on the FBI to release information before the investigation is complete which feeds the media frenzy and produces more leaks with both real and false information.

The closest thing we will get to an accurate picture of Russian inference in the election and any Trump campaign involvement will come from the final report of FBI investigation which has now morphed into the investigation by the Special Council. One thing we can count on is that report will not please either side just as the report of the Clinton email investigation brought condemnation from both the right and left.

I think this investigation will show what we already suspect, and that is Trump is not guilty of anything.

Trump was not a politician until he joined this race. And it's not like it's a job he just had to have. For Trump, it was great if he could become President, and if not, he had better things to do anyway.

And again, this Seth Rich story. Why is his computer under lock and key by the authorities? Why did they close the murder investigation? One would think that if the FBI were serious about finding out who hacked the servers, that would be the first place they'd look.

If Trump is found guilty of anything, it will be because he wasn't a politician. The name of game in politics is "cover your ass and assume someone is always listening and watching.

Trump has owned his own business for over 30 years, operated it in near complete privacy, has never had the media to contend with in his decisions, and has bent the rules if not violating them as every successful developer does. It's pretty clear that Trump never took Politics 101. He may be a success seasoned businessman, but in politics, he is a babe in the woods.

 

[Faun]

Holyfuckingshit!

I knew you had no fucking clue what you were talking about. Thanks for confirming it.

That's based on the folks who are not in the labor force, not just the folks who have "dropped out" of the labor force.

You rightards are truly dumber than dirt.

Well HTF do you suppose it took such a nose dive, because people stayed in the workforce? Talk about dumber than dirt.

No, you flaming moron. The "not in labor force" is not just folks who "dropped out." It's the number of people, age 16 and over, who are not in the work force. There are roughly 4 million teenagers who turn 16 every year. Every one who either doesn't have a job, or is not actively looking for one, would be considered "not in the labor force" though they were never in the labor force to begin with. And you idiotically categorize people who were never in the labor force as those who "dropped out."

The only possible way for that number to be so low is if people gave up looking for work, or did drop out. If you tell the survey people you are out of work and looking for a job, that counts in the unemployment rate. If you tell them you are not working nor looking for a job, you dropped out of the labor participation force and are not considered unemployed. That's one of the reasons the unemployment rate dropped like it did, yet no economic activity to reflect that rate.

No it's not. You're just too retarded to comprehend there are multiple reasons for people to not be in the workforce -- one of which, includes people 16 and over who never held a job or looked for one. You know, what you idiotically refer to as "dropping out" of something they were never in.

Which is irrelevant to the discussion. We were talking about the unemployment rate under DumBama. The unemployment rate is effected by the amount of people (of working age) not (or no longer) in the workforce. Instead of looking at the obvious, you create some kind of leftist wack job theory that 16 year olds simultaneously decided not to work. As the chart shows, there haven't been this many people out of the workforce since the Carter administration.

But nooooo, it can't be DumBama's fault. It must be 16 year olds decided not to work once he became President.

Holyfuckingshit!

YOU were the one to start talking about folks dropping out of the labor force. Now that you've been shown up as the raging imbecile you are with your ludicrous claims about it, you want to run away from it.

And I never said 16 year olds were the problem. I said 16 year olds included just one group of people who didn't "drop out" of the labor force. They were never in the labor force to begin with. That reveals what a moron you are for claiming 100% of the people not in the labor force are not in it because they "dropped out."

 

[Faun]

The American people won't stand for it?? Says who? You??



By a margin of 48% to 41%, more Americans want him impeached than those who don't.

Poll: 48 percent want Trump impeached

You can't fuck America like installing an bumbling buffoon like Trump and get away with it.

Why not? You did!


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

LOL

By electing a president who took the unemployment down from 10% to 5%, nearly tripled the stock market, gave us national healthcare, kept this country from slipping into a depression despite Republicans best efforts.

The Barrypuppet did none of those things. Part-time work was defined as full employment....be it 1 hour a month or 29 hours a week.

As always, dale, you prove to be too insane to bother with. Suffice it to say, part time remains up to 34 hours per week. Anything above that is full time, just as it's always been with the BLS...

Full- or part-time status
Full time is 35 hours or more per week; part time is 1 to 34 hours per week.

Labor Force Characteristics (CPS)​

Go back to your conspiracies about green screens.

The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment

Tell someone who doesn't think you're a raving lunatic.