Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that's the unemployed rate. Those people don't want to work. I'm retired, so I'm one of those people.
The unemployment rate is different, and I wish nothing but the absolute best of luck to every single soul in that count. I drew unemployment once for a while, and felt like dirt while doing it.
I believe you misunderstood PCAL's post. I may be wrong, but I think he was mocking Trump's claim from the campaign.
Hilary lost because of a system that means every vote isn't equal.
Yes, the American system. The one we've always used. The one the states joined the union with.
If you want to talk about a system where people's votes don't count, look at the robbery she committed against Bernie Sanders. Sanders wipes here out in New Hampshire and the DNC gives her "super delegates" so all the people's votes are negated. The, instead of having any integrity, you shrugged your shoulders and voted for her anyway. Then when you found out she was secretly paying (and lying about it) Russian intelligence and Kremlin officials to create dirt on Trump in order to remove him from office, you cheered. So save us your phony righteousness.
I suspect she is one of the people who is getting regular deliveries of Alzheimer's medication. I'm not joking. Anyone remember when this was reported a while back? There were, I think, five members in Congress. I suspect Conyers was one. If Feinstein isn't, she sure will be before her new term expires. Unless she expires first.
Yes, the American system. The one we've always used. The one the states joined the union with.
If you want to talk about a system where people's votes don't count, look at the robbery she committed against Bernie Sanders. Sanders wipes here out in New Hampshire and the DNC gives her "super delegates" so all the people's votes are negated. The, instead of having any integrity, you shrugged your shoulders and voted for her anyway. Then when you found out she was secretly paying (and lying about it) Russian intelligence and Kremlin officials to create dirt on Trump in order to remove him from office, you cheered. So save us your phony righteousness.
I'm not aiming to be righteous, or take sides -just pointing out that election results don't equal more or less favourable policies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Not true, her policy of being an untrustworthy and overly confident did her in.
But she still got more votes -what does that say about her opposition?
I suspect she is one of the people who is getting regular deliveries of Alzheimer's medication. I'm not joking. Anyone remember when this was reported a while back? There were, I think, five members in Congress. I suspect Conyers was one. If Feinstein isn't, she sure will be before her new term expires. Unless she expires first.
I forgot about that story, sad but true. Sticky spot, due to HIPPA and just common decency, medical issues should be private, but when you can literally start wars or bankrupt a nation, there needs to be a work-around.
I'm not aiming to be righteous, or take sides -just pointing out that election results don't equal more or less favourable policies.
But she still got more votes -what does that say about her opposition?
It says nothing, because her opposition didn't play a game of "whats the biggest number of votes I can get" as that would require a different strategy they didn't even try to execute against. Like I said before, both campaigns knew the rules and executed against them to get the desired outcome, Trump did it better. If the goal was to just get a higher number of raw votes, they both would have run different campaigns, and its very possible the result could have still been a Trump win since they obviously had a successful strategy and good execution.
It says nothing, because her opposition didn't play a game of "whats the biggest number of votes I can get" as that would require a different strategy they didn't even try to execute against. Like I said before, both campaigns knew the rules and executed against them to get the desired outcome, Trump did it better. If the goal was to just get a higher number of raw votes, they both would have run different campaigns, and its very possible the result could have still been a Trump win since they obviously had a successful strategy and good execution.
That's right. Trump's win didn't reflect the will of the people, but rather rather a better strategy in "a game"
Hilary lost because of a system that means every vote isn't equal.
Mrs. Pelosi, is that you?
LOL
Hillary lost under the exact same rules that have been in place for 200 years. She knew the rules and she played the game and she got beat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
