• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump victory spurs protests nationwide

Kind of a shallow view of life outside your bubble isn't it.

For your consideration:
a) Some are self employed
b) Some worked all their lives and are now retired
c) Some don't work 9 to 5 hours

I appreciate that some liberals are hard working. As soon as the realities of the real world set in, they are sure to switch to the other side just like I did.

I work a graveyard shift.
 
Except now they enslave the blacks by making them dependent on liberal handouts.

That is exactly the point, the left does indeed enslave people to their ideology and thus become career politicians holding all the power. It is amazing to me how many people are indoctrinated by the left rhetoric and ignore the left results. The fact that Hillary Clinton won LA by 1.1 million votes is staggering and sobering. this should tell the country was is going on. This Sanctuary city along with Chicago and its dead people voting, and the welfare whores of NYC tried to steal the election. Thankfully our Founders got it and knew that power would corrupt thus developed the Electoral College system. Without the major cities and their corruption along with Democratic political bosses, it would have been a popular vote landslide for Trump. The silent majority spoke, the left is throwing a temper tantrum now
 
morning. are the braindead liberals still rioting?
 
Except now they enslave the blacks by making them dependent on liberal handouts.

Their version of the American Dream. Good jobs and a livable wage is what we should be promising them and keeping our promise. Not bringing in cheap labor to keep them from having the opportunity to live the American Dream.
 
Its funny how the media reports these things. I travel a lot and i run into more oeople celebrating his victory than i do protest it, yet i have not seen a single story coving that aspect.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

That is because the people who own our media do not control or own Trump. They will attempt to destroy him at every opportunity. This country cannot have a leader who supports the people not the rich and powerful. The rich and powerful spend lots of money to keep us from uniting. They also spend lots of money providing the 2 parties we chose from. A government Of the People, by the People, and For the People is not part of the plan.
 
Now you're just whining, casting millennials as spoiled and entitled when they are a relatively poor generation of Americans.

f58f605ea3871159eb28da97bdf348be.jpg

Oh, I believe that. THEY DON'T WORK!

I've hired and fired tons of them. Rocket out the door at 5 pm like clockwork. Use their PTO the minute they have eight hours built up. Act like the world owes them something for nothing.

And they are constantly broke because they hire people to cut their grass and clean their houses, even though they aren't making that kind of money yet and they're only 30 years old.

This is what happens when you coddle your kids and tell them they're awesome even when they aren't.
 
Young people charting their career course in life

CxUCLZ4UkAEieiO.jpg
 
I was trying to make sense of whatever "argument" you were alluding to when you named a bunch of behaviors. Please explain what you were claiming.

I hate that there are people who engage in criminal behavior in response to politics.


But you can't even bring yourself to say many of those things are criminal behavior.

for example, I believe if you block a road, and someone dies because of the traffic mess you made, you should be charged with negligent homicide.


I also believe, for example, if you completely cut off free passage through to anyone, and for example people cant get to a store near trump tower because you block the sidewalk. the store and the people should be able to reserve the right to sue individuals and these astro turfing scumbags for damages.
 
Considering those are in no was tracking the same people, it is meaningless without full context.

Have context by chance, or like usual, are you using no critical thinking, and just posting things that match your confirmation bias?

You're just trying, in vain, to wish away facts you don't like.
 
The chart hardly supports your comment. You seem to be ignoring the words "net worth".

A) Wouldn't older married families have accumulated more net worth over the years than a young single millennial?
B) How are our delicate little buttercups going to acquire net worth when they are still living in mama's basement and driving daddy's car?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

The "age 34 and under" category's net worth shrank considerably over the period from 1995 to 2010. Do you not know what "millennials" are or do you not understand the argument you're butting in to?

You act like millennials are the first ones to get any help from their parents.

Why not just show us income instead of skirting the issue?

The chart is ridiculous. People under 35 did not have income in 1965. Showing that someone working for over 50 years has a higher percentage of income growth than someone who only has been working for 10 years hardly addresses current income.

Yes, necessities are expensive. They are expensive for everyone, not just millennials. So how is the second chart pertinent to an income comparison?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

The chart is not ridiculous. You can accuse millennials of being spoiled all you like, it's just that the numbers comprehensibly debunk that wishful thinking of yours. Feel free to try to construct your own argument.
 
Based upon these "incredible economic numbers" which of course are out of context, how did Obama's economic policies lose this past election as Hillary promised to carry them on? It does seem you and the rest of the left live in an alternate universe. It does seem what the American public, not those in the cities of LA, Chicago, and NYC, don't see it your way and the Obama policies were rejected by the electorate.

The American people will always vote their pocketbooks which is why Trump won and Obama lost everything except the major cities. Not once did Obama achieve 3% GDP growth coming off what the left calls the worst recession since the Great Depression but he did expand the role of the Federal Govt. as we have 9.3 trillion added to the debt during his term and over 100 million dependent on the taxpayers for some form of govt. assistance excluding Medicare and SS

Paybacks are hell. I do suggest better DD and even a basic civics and economic course.

Popular vote for Hillary and Trump in the cities of LA, Chicago, and NYC. Difference over 3 million votes. what did Hillary win the popular vote by?

ClintonTrump
Los Angeles1.60.5
Chicago0.70.3
Brooklyn0.60.13
Manhatten0.50.06
Queens0.50.1
Bronx0.30.03


4.21.12

??????

This isn't really what i was talking about.
 
But you can't even bring yourself to say many of those things are criminal behavior.

for example, I believe if you block a road, and someone dies because of the traffic mess you made, you should be charged with negligent homicide.


I also believe, for example, if you completely cut off free passage through to anyone, and for example people cant get to a store near trump tower because you block the sidewalk. the store and the people should be able to reserve the right to sue individuals and these astro turfing scumbags for damages.

Do you not understand what these words mean?

Depends.
Yes.
Probably.
Probably.
Probably not.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Probably.

Context is important. For example, the title of this thread indicates "nationwide protests" not "criminal riots."

I know that right wing authoritarians who are hostile to freedom want to blame liberals for all the worlds problems but i fail to see why other people should be expected to agree with them.
 
Net worth is acquired over time. Of course the average young person is going to have less. To think otherwise, is not thinking!

What does the income chart look like?

The chart hardly supports your comment. You seem to be ignoring the words "net worth".

A) Wouldn't older married families have accumulated more net worth over the years than a young single millennial?
B) How are our delicate little buttercups going to acquire net worth when they are still living in mama's basement and driving daddy's car?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

Derp

It's quite obvious that older people have a higher net worth than younger people. That relationship is broadly shown in all three of the graphs.

What neither of you seemed to grasp is that there are 3 time periods on that graph, and Absents point pertains to the differences between the time periods.

The arrows show that net worth of our <44 demographic has shrunk over the past 30 years, whilst the net worth of older demographics have shot up. I.e. Your average <44 now is poorer than the average <44 back in 1983. That's not good.

Oh, I believe that. THEY DON'T WORK!

I've hired and fired tons of them. Rocket out the door at 5 pm like clockwork. Use their PTO the minute they have eight hours built up. Act like the world owes them something for nothing.

And they are constantly broke because they hire people to cut their grass and clean their houses, even though they aren't making that kind of money yet and they're only 30 years old.

This is what happens when you coddle your kids and tell them they're awesome even when they aren't.

Hey aren't you one of the guys that's been talking about the reason liberals lost is becasue they broad brushed Trump supporters as uneducated/ignorant/whatever?

Then you're go around broadbrushing half the population (<44's make up more than half the population probably) as lazy.

Real smooth.
 
??????

This isn't really what i was talking about.

You really have no idea what you are talking about but rather doing your best to divert from the reality that the Obama agenda which Hillary promoted was rejected. The rhetoric from the left is yes but she won the popular vote which I posted as to why and where that came from. I could have added other Sanctuary cities as well but chose to focus on three of the worst. Wonder how many illegals voted and how many votes were manufactured in these cities.
 
Kind of a shallow view of life outside your bubble isn't it.

For your consideration:
a) Some are self employed
b) Some worked all their lives and are now retired
c) Some don't work 9 to 5 hours

I appreciate that some liberals are hard working. As soon as the realities of the real world set in, they are sure to switch to the other side just like I did.

They're working from home and posting anti-liberal rhetoric at the same time? I've only had one job where that would have been possible. I appreciate that some people are self employed or work the night shift or are lazy and on their phone all day.

The "realities of the world" thing is funny. I choose not to explain myself, but the city I live in is a liberal mecca and is consistently ranked as one of the top cities in the country for just about every standard. Maybe you're the one in a bubble.
 
The "age 34 and under" category's net worth shrank considerably over the period from 1995 to 2010. Do you not know what "millennials" are or do you not understand the argument you're butting in to?

Awww.... Poor baby. Did some mean person respond to your post in a public forum. It looks like you have that millennial behavior down pat.

The chart is not ridiculous. You can accuse millennials of being spoiled all you like, it's just that the numbers comprehensibly debunk that wishful thinking of yours. Feel free to try to construct your own argument.

Of course it is ridiculous. The chart is fantastical. You completely skipped over the salient point. Someone born in the 1980's could not have income in 1965. Yet your magical chart shows the fluctuation in their income starting in that year. Can you provide the raw data? I would love to see how those yet unborn earned a living. "comprehensibly debunk" indeed....

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
Awww.... Poor baby. Did some mean person respond to your post in a public forum. It looks like you have that millennial behavior down pat.

Whatever you're trying to project on me is irrelevant. You ignored my question- do you know what "millennial" means?

Of course it is ridiculous. The chart is fantastical. You completely skipped over the salient point. Someone born in the 1980's could not have income in 1965. Yet your magical chart shows the fluctuation in their income starting in that year. Can you provide the raw data? I would love to see how those yet unborn earned a living. "comprehensibly debunk" indeed....

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

?

I don't think you understand how the chart works.

Someone who was in the 15-24 year age bracket in 1970 would be in the 25-34 year age bracket in 1980.
 
Awww.... Poor baby. Did some mean person respond to your post in a public forum. It looks like you have that millennial behavior down pat.

Of course it is ridiculous. The chart is fantastical. You completely skipped over the salient point. Someone born in the 1980's could not have income in 1965. Yet your magical chart shows the fluctuation in their income starting in that year. Can you provide the raw data? I would love to see how those yet unborn earned a living. "comprehensibly debunk" indeed....

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk

Do you really not understand the graph?

Wow.

Do you need to be walked through it slower? There are big blue and green arrows on there to help you out.
 
Whatever you're trying to project on me is irrelevant. You ignored my question- do you know what "millennial" means?



?

I don't think you understand how the chart works.

Someone who was in the 15-24 year age bracket in 1970 would be in the 25-34 year age bracket in 1980.

That was rich. No wonder you don't understand. Your description would be true for the 65 and older line. The 15-24 year olds have a separate line. And somehow, they had income in 1967. I don't understand how a lot of things work. But I do understand that somebody who was not born yet cannot have a job.

Have you found the raw data yet? Or are you going to keep dodging, spinning, and feverishly standing by this obviously flawed chart?
 
That was rich. No wonder you don't understand. Your description would be true for the 65 and older line. The 15-24 year olds have a separate line. And somehow, they had income in 1967. I don't understand how a lot of things work. But I do understand that somebody who was not born yet cannot have a job.

Have you found the raw data yet? Or are you going to keep dodging, spinning, and feverishly standing by this obviously flawed chart?

In 1967, there was a group of people in the 15-24 age bracket. In 1977, there was a completely different set of people in the 15-24 age bracket.
 
In 1967, there was a group of people in the 15-24 age bracket. In 1977, there was a completely different set of people in the 15-24 age bracket.
Of course there was. But that is not reflected in the chart. Are you going to stop playing around and explain how those 15 year olds had income in 1967? Still waiting on the raw data. Does it exist?

Sent from my LG-V930 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom