>>359582>Someone like who? You?
No, not someone like me, as I already said.
>For someone who I really don't think is going to vote for him no matter what, you sure are putting a lot of consideration into what's best for his campaign. Unless of course, none of this is in good faith.
Previously, I could say "I don't agree with his policies, but I respect him because X, Y, Z" and then he sort of lost his credibility by showing zero spine during the last election, but I could still say "I don't agree with his policies, but the Democrats done him dirty, so I can still root for him", but now he's losing that too, and all I can say is "fuck that guy, he deserves it"
And it's not like I want
the Democratic party to consist of lunatics. I'd like
to have an actual choice come election time.
>If it's not this it will be literally anything else.
I mean, do you want
him to lose?
>And these other grains of sand...?
take your pick. there's the SJW rollover. there's the praise of communist regimes. there are the policies, themselves. there are the accusations, whether real or not. but #believewomen, so I guess Bernie's gotta go...>>359584
I was hoping you'd go there, because I'm not talking about GDP alone. In actuality, inflation-adjusted household income is higher now than ever before, at all levels
. The top 5% is richer than ever before. The top 25% is richer than ever before. The top 50% is richer than ever before. The bottom 25% is richer than ever before. The bottom 5%
is richer than ever before. and this is adjusted for inflation
Look, I know in your Utopia, everyone is in the same level of squalor and all, but here in America, things are actually going well.
>There's an interesting story here about how increasing the threshold to recieve food stamps is actually incredibly damaging to small businesses who rely on a stable purchasing base, where bigger companies can handle turbulant markets, but this is beside the point.
This is one of the main problems I have with food stamps in general. The same goes for housing programs.
We still have a massive national debt, you know. And we still have unfunded liabilities that are enormous in comparison to the gains. Why the hell shouldn't we address them before they literally destroy our economy? we should just give out free candy to everyone, and not worry about the house catching on fire?
Your economic policies are comparable to a kid fresh out of high school, who just got a job bonus, blows the whole thing on hookers and blow, only to wonder why they no longer have any money left. cry to daddy for more money and blame someone else while you're at it - socialism in a nutshell.
>The slope of the curve is stagnant and a holdover from Obama, this goes for employment too.
There is a lower limit to unemployment.>Since you're a dirty capitalist, you'll be delighted to find out that economists say that unemployment is too low.
Congratulations, you've apparently found some economists who thinks bread lines are a good thing.>What good does it to the people to have a job that doesn't pay enough?
Who decides what "enough" is? oh no, someone can only afford a 48 inch TV, instead of a 70 inch! woe is he.>We have a saying here: "Do a job with meaning." It's used when your job literally serves no purpose to the betterment of society.
being paid to sit on your ass and provide nothing to anyone is a much better alternative, I'm sure.>Imagine my shock when I found out that "bagger" and "greeter" were occupations.
They are jobs, not careers.
>In a world where an increasing amount of jobs are replaced by automation, it would be natural that unemployment would rise or working hours would decrease. Why is the opposite true then?
because it hasn't fully hit all industries, and in those that it has hit, the levels at which it effects different companies varies. pretty simply concepts, really.>Why is your worth as a human tied to the amount you produce in services or product?
I never said it was.>The economy and employment rates are moot points in a vacuum that can describe a myriad of things.
They are certainly things you can disregard when they indicate in favor of Trump, while you maintain the illusion that everything he does is bad by definition.>>359585
will respond later