Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Garnier Fructis]

You guys really need to stop trying to have it both ways.

'It's doing better than it was but it could be better' should not be this hard of a concept to grasp.

[Breccia]

It looks to me that under-employment is also a problem with food stamp program. Corporate welfare?

Corporate welfare, you say? Isn't Trump against raising the minimum wage? Or did he change his mind on that one too?

Did that article mention the thousands upon thousands of current active duty military who are on SNAP? Because, pretty sure we can't blame unemployment for that one.

[LaserSharkDFB]

This is a perfect example of intellectual dishonesty, and why it's a waste of time to try talking to you.

Doc was right, that persistent willful ignorance.

I am happy to be corrected. Please tell me where I have been dishonest in any fashion.

Nice back-handed insult. Ouch!


And another. Damn...that one's going to leave a mark!

How old are you? Please tell me < 25.

I genuinely hope that we find common ground some day. Until then, we'll just trade insults...is that the deal you want?

Well, as long as you continue to counter my points with nothing but insults, I don't see how we can have it any other way. Anyway, it's not like you and Daerio haven't complained on multiple occasions when I required actual facts to back up your claims.

[Daerio]

'It's doing better than it was but it could be better' should not be this hard of a concept to grasp.

That's not the statement I remember the Obama administration making. What I heard was 4.7% unemployment, practically the best rate it's been in American history.

There's a vast difference and contradiction between these two statements that I'm unable to reconcile.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, as long as you continue to counter my points with nothing but insults, I don't see how we can have it any other way. Anyway, it's not like you and Daerio haven't complained on multiple occasions when I required actual facts to back up your claims.

You demand proof of things beyond a reasonable doubt that don't even need to be disproven when we've already agreed they're unlikely. This is not a good faith discussion. It's not even a convincing argument, it's a childish attempt to derail the discussion into a constant unreasonable demand to prove things that don't need to be proven and declaring some sort of moral victory when your impossible burden of proof is not met.

[LaserSharkDFB]

That's not the statement I remember the Obama administration making. What I heard was 4.7% unemployment, practically the best rate it's been in American history.

There's a vast difference and contradiction between these two statements that I'm unable to reconcile.

Would 'the U3 is doing fine but the U6 could be better' be acceptable to you? Because sure, I can get behind that.

- - - Updated - - -

You demand proof of things beyond a reasonable doubt that don't even need to be disproven when we've already agreed they're unlikely. This is not a good faith discussion. It's not even a convincing argument, it's a childish attempt to derail the discussion into a constant unreasonable demand to prove things that don't need to be proven and declaring some sort of moral victory when your impossible burden of proof is not met.

No. I demand proof of things if you want to state them as fact. That's the critical point you keep ignoring. You can state your claims as opinion all day long, I don't care, but as soon as you say they're actually true, you have to prove them as such.

[Daerio]

No. I demand proof of things if you want to state them as fact. That's the critical point you keep ignoring. You can state your claims as opinion all day long, I don't care, but as soon as you say they're actually true, you have to prove them as such.

I don't need to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when we've already mutually agreed that it's unlikely, that's what it means to have a good faith discussion. Your assertion that people quit their jobs willingly to go on food stamps and welfare does not need to be disproven because it's fucking stupid to begin with.

[LaserSharkDFB]

I don't need to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt when we've already agreed that it's unlikely, that's what it means to have a good faith discussion. Your assertion that people quit their jobs willingly to go on food stamps and welfare does not need to be disproven because it's fucking stupid to begin with.

I never made that assertion. As I've asked you before, stop putting words in my mouth. And yes you fucking do need to prove something that you claim is fact, are you kidding me? You can say 'I think that' or 'It's probable' or 'It's likely', but as soon as you say 'It IS', proof is required.

[Garnier Fructis]

That's not the statement I remember the Obama administration making. What I heard was 4.7% unemployment, practically the best rate it's been in American history.

There's a vast difference and contradiction between these two statements that I'm unable to reconcile.

That's a personal problem, and not an actual problem.

[Daerio]

I never made that assertion. As I've asked you before, stop putting words in my mouth. And yes you fucking do need to prove something that you claim is fact, are you kidding me? You can say 'I think that' or 'It's probable' or 'It's likely', but as soon as you say 'It IS', proof is required.

Wrong; once again, providing proof of something that we've already mutually agreed on is not required; it's just something stupid you demand all the time and think yourself clever, especially so when people stop responding to it.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a personal problem, and not an actual problem.

I admire your level of doublethink.

[Garnier Fructis]

I admire your level of doublethink.

I admire your inability to see even small amounts of nuance.

[Paranoid Android]

Corporate welfare, you say? Isn't Trump against raising the minimum wage? Or did he change his mind on that one too?

Did that article mention the thousands upon thousands of current active duty military who are on SNAP? Because, pretty sure we can't blame unemployment for that one.

You know its easier always to blame the poor guy, then all mighty business. They never do anything wrong. Corporate welfare gets a pass for some reason. Which of course on another thread about "3 Rich Guys Paying Taxes", these people should get welfare and not have to pay their share. So I guess it gets "trickled down" to the middle class.

Which I always point to the immigration problem. I am serious when I have never hear once the businesses responsibility when it comes to illegal immigration problem. To be fair, the Dems never vilify businesses too much either. Trump and his people are the ones making the most of this situation.

[Daerio]

You know its easier always to blame the poor guy, then all mighty business. They never do anything wrong.

Which I always point to the immigration problem. I am serious when I have never hear once the businesses responsibility when it comes to illegal immigration problem. To be fair, the Dems never vilify businesses too much either. Trump and his people are the ones making the most of this situation.

Is Clinton the candidate to reign in corporate welfare and abuse?

Or is she in fact the one who's been getting the most donations from said corporations to get elected while making meaningless promises that literally nobody on Earth believes she'll actually follow through on?

Trump doesn't really have incentive to reign this in either, unfortunately, but he's a wildcard on some issues. He at least has less incentive than Clinton to keep things the way they are now.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Wrong; once again, providing proof of something that we've already mutually agreed on is not required; it's just something stupid you demand all the time and think yourself clever, especially so when people stop responding to it.

Funny, I don't recall agreeing on anything. Look, Doc said 'Tell that to the millions who gave up looking for work a long time ago and are now living off food stamps.' and posted a chart showing just the percentage of the population on food stamps. How many people on that chart actually gave up looking for work? Do you know? Did he? That's why I asked for the numbers; knowing how many people out of that total were discouraged workers is necessary to back up his point about 'millions' or even to judge the situation at all.

And you're free to not provide evidence to back up your claims. It just shows you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Paranoid Android]

Is Clinton the candidate to reign in corporate welfare and abuse?

Or is she in fact the one who's been getting the most donations from said corporations to get elected while making meaningless promises that literally nobody on Earth believes she'll actually follow through on?

Yes. Hillary has been very pro-corporation and wall street. Trump gives the same old "cut taxes". Honestly his policies tariffs and forcing companies to bring jobs back is ridiculous. Even as a person who hates how wages are stagnant and jobs loss, I know that we cannot stop globalization.

So both you can say are pretty much the same. I will say I am not team Hillary, but Trump is just crazy.

[Daerio]

Yes. Hillary has been very pro-corporation and wall street. Trump gives the same old "cut taxes". Honestly his policies tariffs and forcing companies to bring jobs back is ridiculous. Even as a person who hates how wages are stagnant and jobs loss, I know that we cannot stop globalization.

So both you can say are pretty much the same. I will say I am not team Hillary, but Trump is just crazy.

Trump is willing to say whatever he thinks sounds good at the time to get elected, exactly like Clinton. Except he's saying very anti-establishment things we haven't heard a presidential candidate say before because we haven't had a non-politician running for president since the union was formed. He's promising crazy things because people really do want the change they voted for twice with Obama that never came, and people are tired of both sides of the aisle and Trump truly isn't part of either party. Had Clinton not rigged her primary, it would be Sanders against Trump and this election would have been a landline Democratic victory. Instead, we're going to see Trump win because people are tired of the rigged system from top to bottom, and Clinton herself is the epitome of establishment political corruption and has been for decades.

But to get back to the point, Trump is trying to make the same crazy meaningless campaign promises that all the politicians are, but they sound crazier because he isn't a politician and he's appealing to a very different sect of voters (and people that haven't voted before) than politicians typically have.

[DocSavageFan]

Funny, I don't recall agreeing on anything. Look, Doc said 'Tell that to the millions who gave up looking for work a long time ago and are now living off food stamps.' and posted a chart showing just the percentage of the population on food stamps. How many people on that chart actually gave up looking for work? Do you know? Did he? That's why I asked for the numbers; knowing how many people out of that total were discouraged workers is necessary to back up his point about 'millions' or even to judge the situation at all.

And you're free to not provide evidence to back up your claims. It just shows you don't have a leg to stand on.

To placate your intellectually frail sensibilities, here's the chart showing number of people on food stamps (instead of percentage of population as previously posted). Roughly 20,000,000 people were added to the food stamp roles since 2008 and we've been holding very close to that level for several years. I'm not saying all of the 20,000,000 people stopped looking for work after 12 months and no longer show up in the BLS unemployment statistics, but it's not unreasonable to connect the dots here and reasonably conclude that several million did indeed fall into this black hole. Unfortunately the level of factual information you demand doesn't exist as no one keeps track of those who gave up looking for work after 12 months...but you knew that already...or I at least hope you did. The food stamp numbers scream my point that millions have indeed stopped looking for work (not accounted for in BLS numbers) and that millions are also marginally employed at best (many likely not accounted for in BLS numbers). But these are things for reasonable people to discuss and find common ground for agreement. As for others, it's just too damn difficult to be reasonable and accept the obvious.

[Annoying]

To placate your intellectually frail sensibilities, here's the chart showing number of people on food stamps (instead of percentage of population as previously posted). Roughly 20,000,000 people were added to the food stamp roles since 2008 and we've been holding very close to that level for several years. I'm not saying all of the 20,000,000 people stopped looking for work after 12 months and no longer show up in the BLS unemployment statistics, but it's not unreasonable to connect the dots here and reasonably conclude that several million did indeed fall into this black hole. Unfortunately the level of factual information you demand doesn't exist as no one keeps track of those who gave up looking for work after 12 months...but you knew that already...or I at least hope you did. The food stamp numbers scream my point that millions have indeed stopped looking for work (not accounted for in BLS numbers) and that millions are also marginally employed at best (many likely not accounted for in BLS numbers). But these are things for reasonable people to discuss and find common ground for agreement. As for others, it's just too damn difficult to be reasonable and accept the obvious.

You say "stopped looking for work" like there's some correlation between receiving food stamps and being unemployed. You know, some huge chunk of those TANF recipients are actually working, right? Unless your definition of marginally employed is "the millions of workers at wal-mart", it's not terribly relateable.

[LaserSharkDFB]

To placate your intellectually frail sensibilities, here's the chart showing number of people on food stamps (instead of percentage of population as previously posted). Roughly 20,000,000 people were added to the food stamp roles since 2008 and we've been holding very close to that level for several years. I'm not saying all of the 20,000,000 people stopped looking for work after 12 months and no longer show up in the BLS unemployment statistics, but it's not unreasonable to connect the dots here and reasonably conclude that several million did indeed fall into this black hole. Unfortunately the level of factual information you demand doesn't exist as no one keeps track of those who gave up looking for work after 12 months...but you knew that already...or I at least hope you did. The food stamp numbers scream my point that millions have indeed stopped looking for work (not accounted for in BLS numbers) and that millions are also marginally employed at best (many likely not accounted for in BLS numbers). But these are things for reasonable people to discuss and find common ground for agreement. As for others, it's just too damn difficult to be reasonable and accept the obvious.

[IMG]http://www.rightwinggranny.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/food-stamps-yearly-do-not-hotlink.jpg

In other words, you're admitting you don't have the facts to back up what you're saying, but you're going to assume your theory is correct anyway. Okay.

[Daerio]

You say "stopped looking for work" like there's some correlation between receiving food stamps and being unemployed. You know, some huge chunk of those TANF recipients are actually working, right? Unless your definition of marginally employed is "the millions of workers at wal-mart", it's not terribly relateable.

It's indicative of either massive amounts of people suddenly becoming unemployed or underemployed either way, which once again somehow isn't mentioned when we're talking about 4.7% unemployment and how amazing the recovery is. (lol)

[DocSavageFan]

You say "stopped looking for work" like there's some correlation between receiving food stamps and being unemployed. You know, some huge chunk of those TANF recipients are actually working, right? Unless your definition of marginally employed is "the millions of workers at wal-mart", it's not terribly relateable.

Income level and food stamp subsidies are definitely correlated. Income level and unemployment are definitely correlated. Therefore unemployment and food stamp subsidies are correlated. Am I missing something here?

As of February 2016, there were 45,800,000 Americans receiving food stamps. The last time the unemployment rate was under five percent was in 2008, there were only 28,000,000 million on food stamps at that time. Think about it and then please give me a reasonable explanation for this.

- - - Updated - - -

In other words, you're admitting you don't have the facts to back up what you're saying, but you're going to assume your theory is correct anyway. Okay.

Sure sport. And I actually thought I was incredibly clear on this point. My hope was in vain it seems.