• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
I looked at the Ohio school system website. There are 135,707 12th graders. Assume turnout is in line with averages and say 40% vote and half are democrats. That means there could be 30k more votes in the democratic primary.

The OGT tests are next week, which might catch a few of those 17 year olds. But we'll see what happens.
 

User 406

Banned
While we're on the subject of reagan policies that not many people were aware of...did you know that researchers at the national academy of sciences and the school of public health in berkeley found in a study in 1992 that the deaths of 1470 children from Reye's syndrome could have been prevented if regulations mandating the labelling of aspirin medication that was linked to the illness was not obstructed by the reagan administration? And that by 1986, when the labelling was finally enacted, reported cases of reye's syndrome dropped from 556 in 1985 to 32?
The disregard for the aids epidemic was not ronald reagan's only domestic medical legacy

We really should have a Ronald Reagan History Month to explain the absolute myriad of ways in which he fucked this country and much of the rest of the world. His Presidency was breathtaking in it's destructiveness.
 
If that's the full quote, then her retraction makes no sense.
She should have said she misremembered!

I think she probably remembered that 87' Ronnie speech on the disease and at that time she was happy that the Rayguns finally spoke on the matter, thereby driving the national conversation.

But again, that's like thanking Bush for starting a national dialogue on FEMA preparedness.
 
She should have said she misremembered!

I think she probably remembered that 87' Ronnie speech on the disease and at that time she was happy that the Rayguns finally spoke on the matter, thereby driving the national conversation.

But again, that's like thanking Bush for starting a national dialogue on FEMA preparedness.

In someways Bush did. It made us vow to never fuck up that bad again.

And, Ironically, the death of Nancy Reagan has led us to talk about AIDS again.

Ironically.
 
In someways Bush did. It made us vow to never fuck up that bad again.

And, Ironically, the death of Nancy Reagan has led us to talk about AIDS again.

Ironically.
Well maybe. Potus can drive a national conversation, and Reagan finally admitting the AIDS problem helped that, which was what she was getting at.
 
There are an insane amount of protestors at this Trump rally in Chicago. Some of them have signs that say bum rush Trump. I'm worried for the guy.
 

User 406

Banned
This is pretty neat, I have to say: https://www.berniepb.com/

CMOfMAuUkAEpcqd.jpg
 

Tarkus

Member
There are 6 measures of labour underutilization. One officially used. I'm not sure why the U6 is now considered the only "real" one, when the official one has been used forever and they track together anyway.
U6-vs-U3-Dec-2015.jpg

Although similar, they don't exactly track together. Look at the 8% disparity in 2010 and the 3% difference in 2001.
 
https://twitter.com/lizzwinstead/status/708430651515609088

Lizz Winstead ‏@lizzwinstead 5m5 minutes ago
I misspoke. Turns out Nancy Reagan was the WORST on HIV/AIDS. Sorry for the confusion. Oh and Reagan Vetoed Stem cell research also. kbye



Guessing this was true? I remember hearing about her being an advocate about steam cells, mostly because he developed Alzheimer's. But I don't know the time like of it.
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's. The cold, hard truth is that a lot of people do not care about diseases until they are or a close friend/family member is affected. I'm not one to defend Reagan (I think there's few presidents worse) but that's human nature.
 
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's.

Which is typical for some Conservatives. They on;y care about something when it immediately impacts them. A lack of empathy is a huge problem in this country. See Rob Portman in Ohio who only supported SSM when his son came out as gay.
 

Makai

Member
Although similar, they don't exactly track together. Look at the 8% disparity in 2010 and the 3% difference in 2001.
In most discussions about real unemployment, there's always a comparison of U6 today to U1 or whatever in the Great Depression. When you compare numbers of the same kind, there's not much to get excited about.

"Good God, if you look at real unemployment it's almost as bad as 1997! :U"
 

pigeon

Banned
Here's the spread between U6 and top-line.

fredgraph.png


It is certainly revealing to look at, and you can definitely see a bump in the spread during the recession, but, I mean, it looks a lot to me like the spread itself is tracking U3.
 
In most discussions about real unemployment, there's always a comparison of U6 today to U1 or whatever in the Great Depression. When you compare numbers of the same kind, there's not much to get excited about.

"Good God, if you look at real unemployment it's almost as bad as 1997! :U"

which is why they then usually pivot to "but what kinds of jobs?", since the negative narrative must keep on truckin'
 
They only came around on stem cell research when Ron got Alzheimer's. The cold, hard truth is that a lot of people do not care about diseases until they are or a close friend/family member is affected. I'm not one to defend Reagan (I think there's few presidents worse) but that's human nature.

No, Republicans don't give a shit about diseases or social issues until it affects them or a loved one. It's well documented.
 
So, NBC Nightly News didn't even mention the Hillary thing. They did run the clip (with Andrea "Emails" Mitchell) with Hillary praising Nancy for her stand on stem cell research.

Good.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
So Jorge Ramos actually asked why Hillary lied about BENGHAZI! at the recent debate?

"Liberal" media indeed. Ugh.
 

Tarkus

Member
Here's the spread between U6 and top-line.

fredgraph.png


It is certainly revealing to look at, and you can definitely see a bump in the spread during the recession, but, I mean, it looks a lot to me like the spread itself is tracking U3.
The general trend follows the U3 number, sure, but let's speak in terms of comparison, U3(U6): We had a 4%(7%) unemployment rate in 2001, and we had a 9%(17%) in 2011. Clearly, there are more disparaged former workers and others who fell off the grid recently than before.

What does it mean? It means there is a sizeable amount that isn't accounted for in the current "official unemployment rate."
 

pigeon

Banned
The general trend follows the U3 number, sure, but let's speak in terms of comparison, U3(U6): We had a 4%(7%) unemployment rate in 2001, and we had a 9%(17%) in 2011. Clearly, there are more disparaged former workers and others who fell off the grid recently than before.

What does it mean? It means there is a sizeable amount that isn't accounted for in the current "official unemployment rate."

Well, no. There was a sizeable number of people who weren't accounted for in the official unemployment rate during 2011!

Again, my graph is of the difference between U6 and U3. Kind of the point of the graph is that, today, the spread is 5% trending down, and before the recession, the spread was about 4% trending sideways. There's still a little bit of a break there, but overall the number of slightly unemployed people is very close to the number it was before the recession.

The point I was illustrating about tracking is that you can see that bumps in the official unemployment rate have kind of a doubled effect on U6 -- they increase U6 directly, but since U6-U3 tracks with U3, they also increase the difference. Or, in other words, when unemployment goes up, partial unemployment actually goes up even faster, and comes back down a little slower.
 
Governor Christie’s extensive travel last year in support of his presidential campaign cost taxpayers more than $600,000 to cover his required security detail, according to administration documents.

The bill for State Police protection in 2015 brings Christie’s total security costs to $1.769 million since 2010, his first year in office, records show. A large portion of those costs have come in Christie’s second term, as he traveled heavily as chairman of the Republican Governors Association and in preparation for his White House campaign.
Now that Christie is out of the race for the Republican Party nomination, the police protection costs borne by taxpayers is likely to be much less than previous years. But Christie said last week he’ll continue billing the state for his security, whether it is on trips stumping for Donald Trump or grocery shopping at his local supermarket, because round-the-clock security is a requirement of the State Police.
Thanks Christie! It's good to know that I'll be paying for Christie to be shilling for Trump.
 
Should he not be protected or allowed to run for office?

I'm totally fine with requiring that people that want to run for a different office than the one they currently hold should be forced to quit their currently-held office, tbqh.

You wanna take a gamble? Do it on your own time.
 
These complaints are eye rolling. That's a minuscule number.

Should he not be protected or allowed to run for office?

And I'm assuming you, as most on the left, want public funding?

His campaign should pay for it if he's not working for the state of NJ (which is what Scott Walker did). Why should taxpayers pay for him to travel around promoting Trump?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom