Think of the Trump supporters who "boycotted the NFL" and "boycotted the Superbowl" while President Trump hosted his own Superbowl viewing party in Palm Beach!
At least Mr. Trump got to see a pretty compelling game 
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
On the Changing of One's Positions:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It is very rare that I can say that I have actually changed in any real substance a position I have previously taken over the past thirty years of my life. However, it bears noting in the interest of disclosure that my approach to the subject of amnesty which was once as hardened as stone against any movement whatsoever in this area as recently as a bit over ten years ago or more has undergone some change. This website was suspended in December of 2009 and not reactivated until April of 2017. As a fair amount of time had passed where this site was dormant and as I work very hard to be consistent in every position I have taken, it is only rational that I acknowledge what could appear to be a glaring contradiction in a position currently held versus one previously held.{1} And in researching past threads of this website for a piece I am currently writing on a different subject{2}, I was reminded of my previous position on amnesty as I had quite often publicly stated it. Therefore, I want to in the interest of proper ethics at the present time address this matter directly.
As for the precise moment when my position changed from what it was to what it currently is, I was able in other communications mediums to find an example of my previously set-in-stone position as recently as June 19, 2013 when I said the following:
[L]ets see, the two biggest issues on Capitol Hill right now are immigration reform and amnesty with the Senate trying to ram through an amnesty-laden bill before July 4th. Meanwhile, Tea Party folks are holding an "Abolish the IRS" rally in DC for today. Those who wonder why I have in the past year viewed the Tea Party as having jumped the shark, here is a crystal clear reason why!
However, I was also able to find a comment on another thread from June 13, 2013 where I stated the following:
Getting back to the immigration reform proposal on the table now, I do not see how S 744 is a net positive for Republicans. The best time to deal with immigration reform is after the 2016 election if the GOP can retain the House, gain the Senate, and win the presidency. At that point, they can address this issue with a far better bill than the crap being offered up here.
And then there is this posting of mine in another communications medium from April 18, 2014:
[I] heard that Nancy Pelosi sought to use the Holy Thursday footwashing ritual to play the role of Jesus and wash a couple of immigrant childrens feet to push amnesty for illegals and I am wondering: can we nail her to a cross for illegal immigrants on Good Friday?
It would appear that pinpointing in writing a precise eureka moment where my view changed is probably not possible to do. However, I can narrow down a range and it is over the past few years where I have taken more time to think with greater care on this particular matter in all of its particulars which caused my position to change. It has changed to one which is in my view more reasonable and humane than the position I had previously taken.{3} And while I may well in the coming weeks and months publish some materials written in the period of this website's suspension where I delve into this matter more precisely, it makes sense to me to first acknowledge in a forthright manner that any appearance of inconsistency between my past enunciations on this matter and any future ones on this humble site will not be imaginary ones.
In short, there has been a change in how I view this matter so consider this posting to be a public acknowledgement of the matter that may be referenced if needed from this point onward in future postings on the matter in question.
Notes:
{1} Should such a phenomenon actually exist or be brought to my attention.
{2} It will be for Jaded Politics.
{3} "Last I checked, being in the country illegally is at least a misdemeanor. So as citizens with misdemeanors can satisfy their violations with paying fines and jail time, why should illegals not be able to do likewise? [Excerpt from a Communications Thread (circa June 14, 2014)]
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It is very rare that I can say that I have actually changed in any real substance a position I have previously taken over the past thirty years of my life. However, it bears noting in the interest of disclosure that my approach to the subject of amnesty which was once as hardened as stone against any movement whatsoever in this area as recently as a bit over ten years ago or more has undergone some change. This website was suspended in December of 2009 and not reactivated until April of 2017. As a fair amount of time had passed where this site was dormant and as I work very hard to be consistent in every position I have taken, it is only rational that I acknowledge what could appear to be a glaring contradiction in a position currently held versus one previously held.{1} And in researching past threads of this website for a piece I am currently writing on a different subject{2}, I was reminded of my previous position on amnesty as I had quite often publicly stated it. Therefore, I want to in the interest of proper ethics at the present time address this matter directly.
As for the precise moment when my position changed from what it was to what it currently is, I was able in other communications mediums to find an example of my previously set-in-stone position as recently as June 19, 2013 when I said the following:
[L]ets see, the two biggest issues on Capitol Hill right now are immigration reform and amnesty with the Senate trying to ram through an amnesty-laden bill before July 4th. Meanwhile, Tea Party folks are holding an "Abolish the IRS" rally in DC for today. Those who wonder why I have in the past year viewed the Tea Party as having jumped the shark, here is a crystal clear reason why!
However, I was also able to find a comment on another thread from June 13, 2013 where I stated the following:
Getting back to the immigration reform proposal on the table now, I do not see how S 744 is a net positive for Republicans. The best time to deal with immigration reform is after the 2016 election if the GOP can retain the House, gain the Senate, and win the presidency. At that point, they can address this issue with a far better bill than the crap being offered up here.
And then there is this posting of mine in another communications medium from April 18, 2014:
[I] heard that Nancy Pelosi sought to use the Holy Thursday footwashing ritual to play the role of Jesus and wash a couple of immigrant childrens feet to push amnesty for illegals and I am wondering: can we nail her to a cross for illegal immigrants on Good Friday?
It would appear that pinpointing in writing a precise eureka moment where my view changed is probably not possible to do. However, I can narrow down a range and it is over the past few years where I have taken more time to think with greater care on this particular matter in all of its particulars which caused my position to change. It has changed to one which is in my view more reasonable and humane than the position I had previously taken.{3} And while I may well in the coming weeks and months publish some materials written in the period of this website's suspension where I delve into this matter more precisely, it makes sense to me to first acknowledge in a forthright manner that any appearance of inconsistency between my past enunciations on this matter and any future ones on this humble site will not be imaginary ones.
In short, there has been a change in how I view this matter so consider this posting to be a public acknowledgement of the matter that may be referenced if needed from this point onward in future postings on the matter in question.
Notes:
{1} Should such a phenomenon actually exist or be brought to my attention.
{2} It will be for Jaded Politics.
{3} "Last I checked, being in the country illegally is at least a misdemeanor. So as citizens with misdemeanors can satisfy their violations with paying fines and jail time, why should illegals not be able to do likewise? [Excerpt from a Communications Thread (circa June 14, 2014)]
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Points to Ponder:
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [Matthew 23:29-33]
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, 'If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.' Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" [Matthew 23:29-33]
Monday, January 22, 2018
Miscellaneous Musings on the First 2018 Government Shutdown...
Having already explained last week how one can logically figure out how to ascribe blame for the shutdown, let us now consider what the deal struck to reopen the government means based on what the demands were that precipitated the shutdown to begin with. See my first comment for details...
Originally, the Republicans wanted a clean CR whereas the Dems wanted a six year extension of the CHIP program as well as a legislative solution for DACA. Republicans agreed to the former but balked at including the latter in an appropriations bill. The Democrats then withheld enough votes to shut down the government when they did not get DACA in the CR resolution. So Republicans wanted a CR without DACA in it and the Democrats insisted it be included.
The resolution to reopen the government does not have DACA in it. Therefore, the Republicans got what they wanted on the primary point of contention and the Democrats did not.
So insofar as one can rationally conclude that in terms of who "won" to the extent anyone actually "wins" in this stuff, the side that got what they wanted is logically the "winner" in this meaning the internal polling for the Democrats must have been pretty awful for them to have caved so quickly.
Having already explained last week how one can logically figure out how to ascribe blame for the shutdown, let us now consider what the deal struck to reopen the government means based on what the demands were that precipitated the shutdown to begin with. See my first comment for details...
Originally, the Republicans wanted a clean CR whereas the Dems wanted a six year extension of the CHIP program as well as a legislative solution for DACA. Republicans agreed to the former but balked at including the latter in an appropriations bill. The Democrats then withheld enough votes to shut down the government when they did not get DACA in the CR resolution. So Republicans wanted a CR without DACA in it and the Democrats insisted it be included.
The resolution to reopen the government does not have DACA in it. Therefore, the Republicans got what they wanted on the primary point of contention and the Democrats did not.
So insofar as one can rationally conclude that in terms of who "won" to the extent anyone actually "wins" in this stuff, the side that got what they wanted is logically the "winner" in this meaning the internal polling for the Democrats must have been pretty awful for them to have caved so quickly.
‘Trump Was Merely Sharing The Gospel With That Porn Star,’ Explains Jim Bakker
I was literally making this same joke to people for a few days before I saw this!
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Miscellaneous Musings:
Whose fault is the shutdown?
Consider the House vote. A resolution was passed 230-197 in the House to fund the government. The yes votes were 224 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Meanwhile the no votes were 11 Republicans and 186 Democrats.
Consider the Senate vote. 60 votes were needed to break a filibuster and 45 Republicans voted yes along with 5 Democrats. Meanwhile 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted no. There was one Republican who did not vote. When you remove McConnells no vote which was a parliamentary trick to enable for a fast revote later on, 46-4-1 for Republicans and 5-44 for the Democrats. Furthermore, even if all 51 Republicans voted yes along with the 5 Democrats, they still would have been 4 votes short of the needed 60.
Consider that President Trump would have signed the bill upon it passing the Senate if it had done so.
There is no way this can logically be pinned on the Republicans so...
#SchumerShutdown
Whose fault is the shutdown?
Consider the House vote. A resolution was passed 230-197 in the House to fund the government. The yes votes were 224 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Meanwhile the no votes were 11 Republicans and 186 Democrats.
Consider the Senate vote. 60 votes were needed to break a filibuster and 45 Republicans voted yes along with 5 Democrats. Meanwhile 44 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted no. There was one Republican who did not vote. When you remove McConnells no vote which was a parliamentary trick to enable for a fast revote later on, 46-4-1 for Republicans and 5-44 for the Democrats. Furthermore, even if all 51 Republicans voted yes along with the 5 Democrats, they still would have been 4 votes short of the needed 60.
Consider that President Trump would have signed the bill upon it passing the Senate if it had done so.
There is no way this can logically be pinned on the Republicans so...
#SchumerShutdown
Friday, January 19, 2018
On the Probable Government Shutdown:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are too many conservatives who are really #clownservatards and incapable of recognizing a political gift when its given.
Case in point, those responding to a probable government shutdown with #releasethememo. There are too many Captain Ahab's on the #clownservatard front who have spent literally years (and sometimes decades!) predicting Obama and/or Hillary would be exposed, arrested, etc. These same folks now are stupidly kvetching about a memo they think will be another smoking gun in their long list of predicted (and failed!) smoking guns. Meanwhile, a political gift is about to be made of the sort that rarely comes around and they are sabotaging it with their latest white whale obsession.
For you see, usually when there has been a government shutdown, the Republicans have caused it and gotten boned politically as a result. However, what we have now is the Democrats pushing for one who have picked a hill to die on in DACA which even among those who support it is not a high priority item as a rule. (If anything its higher priority for those who do not support it!) The same Democrats who pitched reams of apocalyptic talk in 2013 about how social security recipients, children's health care, and a whole host of other vulnerables would suffer as a result of the prior shutdown are themselves pushing for a shutdown now. So either they lied about the effects of the last shutdown or they told the truth but would inflict all the supposed suffering on the same vulnerable for what? Not something that benefits Ma and Pa America in Peoria but instead for illegal immigrants. Yes the same Democrats who decried a shutdown over something that would have helped Americans in 2013 now will push for one to help illegals. The optics of that are politically disastrous for the Democrats.
But what do clownservatard white whalers do? They distract with the whole memo thing rather than get out of the way of their political adversaries willingly cutting their own throats! Rather than table the silly memo thing and let their opponents cut their own throats and hang themselves by owning a shutdown over helping illegals (read: something they would NEVER do for American citizens!) they are getting in the way of their opponents committing political seppeku with another #MobyDickMoment of the sort they have foolishly wasted time and energy on for years to get nothing out of it.
A tip: if there is anything to this memo, table the damn thing right now. Let your opponent cut their own throat tonight (or reveal to the DACAites that they are merely a political pawn and they do not give a shit about them if they refuse to shut down the government over DACA as they are claiming they would do right now!) and let the political fallout over this stunt wreck your political foes for several days first. Then if you must, chase the memo thing. But do not get in the way of your opponent willingly cutting their own throat first. Unless you want to lose yet again as you so often have on these matters over the years in which case, as you were.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
There are too many conservatives who are really #clownservatards and incapable of recognizing a political gift when its given.
Case in point, those responding to a probable government shutdown with #releasethememo. There are too many Captain Ahab's on the #clownservatard front who have spent literally years (and sometimes decades!) predicting Obama and/or Hillary would be exposed, arrested, etc. These same folks now are stupidly kvetching about a memo they think will be another smoking gun in their long list of predicted (and failed!) smoking guns. Meanwhile, a political gift is about to be made of the sort that rarely comes around and they are sabotaging it with their latest white whale obsession.
For you see, usually when there has been a government shutdown, the Republicans have caused it and gotten boned politically as a result. However, what we have now is the Democrats pushing for one who have picked a hill to die on in DACA which even among those who support it is not a high priority item as a rule. (If anything its higher priority for those who do not support it!) The same Democrats who pitched reams of apocalyptic talk in 2013 about how social security recipients, children's health care, and a whole host of other vulnerables would suffer as a result of the prior shutdown are themselves pushing for a shutdown now. So either they lied about the effects of the last shutdown or they told the truth but would inflict all the supposed suffering on the same vulnerable for what? Not something that benefits Ma and Pa America in Peoria but instead for illegal immigrants. Yes the same Democrats who decried a shutdown over something that would have helped Americans in 2013 now will push for one to help illegals. The optics of that are politically disastrous for the Democrats.
But what do clownservatard white whalers do? They distract with the whole memo thing rather than get out of the way of their political adversaries willingly cutting their own throats! Rather than table the silly memo thing and let their opponents cut their own throats and hang themselves by owning a shutdown over helping illegals (read: something they would NEVER do for American citizens!) they are getting in the way of their opponents committing political seppeku with another #MobyDickMoment of the sort they have foolishly wasted time and energy on for years to get nothing out of it.
A tip: if there is anything to this memo, table the damn thing right now. Let your opponent cut their own throat tonight (or reveal to the DACAites that they are merely a political pawn and they do not give a shit about them if they refuse to shut down the government over DACA as they are claiming they would do right now!) and let the political fallout over this stunt wreck your political foes for several days first. Then if you must, chase the memo thing. But do not get in the way of your opponent willingly cutting their own throat first. Unless you want to lose yet again as you so often have on these matters over the years in which case, as you were.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
On Ethics, Principles, “Going Off the Deep End”, Etc.
I heard for twenty-three years from Republicans and conservatives that character was important, ethics mattered, and the Republicans go after past Democrat presidents on these matters. And even though I left the Republican Party more than twenty years ago, I still on some level respected Republicans for taking these stands and generally voted for them. Then one to two years ago, everything changed. Now ethical problems or problems in character are not beneath the president or to be frowned upon but indeed they are either to be ignored, have excuses made for them, or even (God forbid!) celebrated. What changed?
Ethics and principles either matter or they do not. Character and expecting a higher degree of ethics from presidents either matters or it does not. If it does not matter now, then those claiming it mattered when Obama and Clinton were president did not believe what they were pushing for so many years and they owe those men an apology.
That (to be blunt) means the Republicans and many Trump supporters lied through their teeth for more than twenty years on these matters only to abandon their long claimed positions when it was suddenly politically inconvenient for them to espouse them. So if they were a bunch of liars for so many years, why should I believe them now? Why should I believe or trust anything a Trump supporter says now which flatly contradicts what they were saying just a couple years ago? And once Trump is gone and the same folks who kicked long held conservative core principles to the curb recently suddenly start parroting them again, why should I or anyone believe them then?
Or to summarize all of this briefly:
The purpose of this brief note is to address something not a few folks have been saying to me in various and sundry ways as of late. My words will be in regular font. Without further ado...
Seriously...you're going off the deep end.
I realize the point I am raising is one that is uncomfortable for many of todays Trump supporters who yesterday criticized Obama (or Clinton) for the same sort of matters. But that is neither my problem nor am I going off the deep end unless seeking truth and consistency are now off the deep end. Are they?
I realize the point I am raising is one that is uncomfortable for many of todays Trump supporters who yesterday criticized Obama (or Clinton) for the same sort of matters. But that is neither my problem nor am I going off the deep end unless seeking truth and consistency are now off the deep end. Are they?
I heard for twenty-three years from Republicans and conservatives that character was important, ethics mattered, and the Republicans go after past Democrat presidents on these matters. And even though I left the Republican Party more than twenty years ago, I still on some level respected Republicans for taking these stands and generally voted for them. Then one to two years ago, everything changed. Now ethical problems or problems in character are not beneath the president or to be frowned upon but indeed they are either to be ignored, have excuses made for them, or even (God forbid!) celebrated. What changed?
Ethics and principles either matter or they do not. Character and expecting a higher degree of ethics from presidents either matters or it does not. If it does not matter now, then those claiming it mattered when Obama and Clinton were president did not believe what they were pushing for so many years and they owe those men an apology.
That (to be blunt) means the Republicans and many Trump supporters lied through their teeth for more than twenty years on these matters only to abandon their long claimed positions when it was suddenly politically inconvenient for them to espouse them. So if they were a bunch of liars for so many years, why should I believe them now? Why should I believe or trust anything a Trump supporter says now which flatly contradicts what they were saying just a couple years ago? And once Trump is gone and the same folks who kicked long held conservative core principles to the curb recently suddenly start parroting them again, why should I or anyone believe them then?
Or to summarize all of this briefly:
Kindly explain to me how expecting ethical and principled consistency from folks is going off the deep end when it is what conservatives have done for DECADES until only very recently. Now when suddenly its inconvenient, these matters are (at best) ignored.
With all due respect, folks who talk like this should take a long hard look in the mirror and consider what has been done.
2011 Interview With Stormy Daniels: Trump Cheated On Melania With Me
I am sure the Moral Majority and Religious Right folks will find a way to say what was reported here was acceptable "because Trump" of course and presumably even though it happened before the #GreatMoralParadigmShiftOf2016, a dispensation has been retroactively granted to Trump by these folks nonetheless. And as the claim made by Stephanie Clifford (aka "Stormy Daniels") was corroborated by two named persons and the claimant herself took and passed a polygraph at the time of the interview six plus years ago, I trust that is enough probable evidence for those from the #EscalatedBurdenOfProof crowd which has really grown in number since January 20, 2017. But that is neither here nor there.
I do have one exit question though and it is this:
--Will the Moral Majority and the Religious Right folks ever apologize to Bill Clinton?
I mean the whole "but ethics and character matter" schtick: they obviously did not actually believe those things. (I base my claim on their subsequent actions and statements.) So they rightfully owe Bubba an apology if we take their current statements and actions as their real positions on these matters.
I am sure the Moral Majority and Religious Right folks will find a way to say what was reported here was acceptable "because Trump" of course and presumably even though it happened before the #GreatMoralParadigmShiftOf2016, a dispensation has been retroactively granted to Trump by these folks nonetheless. And as the claim made by Stephanie Clifford (aka "Stormy Daniels") was corroborated by two named persons and the claimant herself took and passed a polygraph at the time of the interview six plus years ago, I trust that is enough probable evidence for those from the #EscalatedBurdenOfProof crowd which has really grown in number since January 20, 2017. But that is neither here nor there.
I do have one exit question though and it is this:
--Will the Moral Majority and the Religious Right folks ever apologize to Bill Clinton?
I mean the whole "but ethics and character matter" schtick: they obviously did not actually believe those things. (I base my claim on their subsequent actions and statements.) So they rightfully owe Bubba an apology if we take their current statements and actions as their real positions on these matters.
Wednesday, January 17, 2018
Where are you going I don't mind
I've killed my world and I've killed my time
So where do I go what do I see
I see many people coming after me
So where are you going to I don't mind
If I live too long I'm afraid I'll die
So I will follow you wherever you go
If your offered hand is still open to me
Strangers on this road we are on
We are not two we are one. [Dave Davies]
I've killed my world and I've killed my time
So where do I go what do I see
I see many people coming after me
So where are you going to I don't mind
If I live too long I'm afraid I'll die
So I will follow you wherever you go
If your offered hand is still open to me
Strangers on this road we are on
We are not two we are one. [Dave Davies]
On the "Escalating Standard of Proof" Position Taken By Many Trump Supporters:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It is the considered opinion of your host that these folks are establishing a dangerous precedent implicit in much of what they are saying. I have seen claims of such-and-such was "never established in a court of law" or "there was no sworn statement" as if we cannot ascertain something or take as probable any claim not meeting said standards.
If we are going to now require sworn testimony on everything, then we have really moved the goalposts. (Heck, imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had needed sworn testimony from "Deep Throat" before they could do or say anything!)
I remind readers that the Supreme Court, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos ruled that government employees are not protected from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when speaking pursuant to their official job duties. So anyone from the WH who went on the record with claims with a sworn statement could easily lose their job!
This approach if institutionalized would ensure that there is no motivations to try and correct problems in government or elsewhere but instead would protect the status quo as well as abusers within the latter. I know many who make these claims never explicitly or consciously do that so I would simply recommend greater consideration of the implicit ramifications of this new standard that they few others have been advocating for as of late.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
It is the considered opinion of your host that these folks are establishing a dangerous precedent implicit in much of what they are saying. I have seen claims of such-and-such was "never established in a court of law" or "there was no sworn statement" as if we cannot ascertain something or take as probable any claim not meeting said standards.
If we are going to now require sworn testimony on everything, then we have really moved the goalposts. (Heck, imagine if Woodward and Bernstein had needed sworn testimony from "Deep Throat" before they could do or say anything!)
I remind readers that the Supreme Court, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos ruled that government employees are not protected from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution when speaking pursuant to their official job duties. So anyone from the WH who went on the record with claims with a sworn statement could easily lose their job!
This approach if institutionalized would ensure that there is no motivations to try and correct problems in government or elsewhere but instead would protect the status quo as well as abusers within the latter. I know many who make these claims never explicitly or consciously do that so I would simply recommend greater consideration of the implicit ramifications of this new standard that they few others have been advocating for as of late.
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Inside the tense, profane White House meeting on immigration
Well well well...
"Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 'shithouse' rather than 'shithole' allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said..."
"Three White House officials said Perdue and Cotton told the White House that they heard 'shithouse' rather than 'shithole' allowing them to deny the president’s comments on television over the weekend. The two men initially said publicly that they could not recall what the president said..."
Monday, January 15, 2018
Briefly...
I have noticed that apologists for the Trump administration who are pushing the "lowest black unemployment numbers in decades" story as well as the 4.1% u3 unemployment figures now are many of the same ones who when Obama was in the WH were pushing things like "labour participation rate" (which has declined by .2% for blacks since Obama left the WH!) and the u6 unemployment figure (standing at 8.6%) which they once said were the *true unemployment figures.*
Gee, looks like some folks have been #MovingTheGoalPosts again to me!
I have noticed that apologists for the Trump administration who are pushing the "lowest black unemployment numbers in decades" story as well as the 4.1% u3 unemployment figures now are many of the same ones who when Obama was in the WH were pushing things like "labour participation rate" (which has declined by .2% for blacks since Obama left the WH!) and the u6 unemployment figure (standing at 8.6%) which they once said were the *true unemployment figures.*
Gee, looks like some folks have been #MovingTheGoalPosts again to me!
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Wednesday, January 10, 2018
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Monday, January 08, 2018
We Were Wrong about Stop-and-Frisk
When claims are made that later data does not support, you can either ignore the data and continue to spout talking points divorced from reality or recognize your prior claims were wrong and change your view accordingly!
When claims are made that later data does not support, you can either ignore the data and continue to spout talking points divorced from reality or recognize your prior claims were wrong and change your view accordingly!
Sunday, January 07, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)