Oh dear. He doesn’t understand what makes a thread terrible.

Oh dear. He doesn't understand the concept of subjectivity.

lol yeah sell out 20% of the US uranium to Russia and then get hundreds of millions of dollars in kickbacks. That's totally legitimate.

WOW

Relax ND, the Russians will enrich it, stick it in dodgy nuclear reactors which blow up and it'll all come back as fallout. You're probably only annoyed because Trump didn't get in on the deal himself. For nonsensical rants from outraged Trump acolytes this thread is up there with the best of them, imho.

Relax MM,

When their reactors blow up and it turns into fallout destroying the environment the liberals will still think Obama saved the planet and blame the rich white folks living in the coast for climate change. Or Trump.

Leftist Rules

1) Everything is Trump's fault
2) Trump and the Russians! Everything connects to Russia and Trump (lol)
3) Clinton did nothing wrong!
4) Obama did nothing wrong!
5) Democrats are always right!

-So basically the opposite of everything factual-

At least brainbomb is self-aware.

ban this fucking subhuman

that's not helpful.

If I may, i see no evidence or sources for the OP claim. It would be great if we could have those. Because at this point this thread is the equivalent to me making a thread titled: ND hates babies and thinks they should all be burned at birth.

It would be baseless and without credibility until such point as I found a credible source.

Now on to what qualifies as a credible source:
-Government Sources
-Independent Research Bodies
-NFP Organizations

Blogs and news media do not count. I do not respect any of the news media including CNN AND Fox.


Now if this story were true and had base in credible sources then of course I would have outrage. But, since it doesn't I really don't care. To me stories like this are the equivalent of facebook click-bait. I wouldn't be surprised if that's where the OP found it.

Now on to my next solid point since the defense of A is always to attack B.

Trump is NOT perfect.
Clinton is NOT perfect.

Clinton is NOT president
Trump IS president

That math adds up to:
IDGAF about what clinton does day to day
I care deeply about what Trump does day to day

And in less than a year we've had quite a few things happen im not happy about:
-Conducting International diplomacy via twitter.
-Approving the use of US tax dollars for the wall (something he promised not to do)
-Complete lack of tact when dealing with Gold Star families
-Politicizing the hurricane tragedies. (I blame both sides but as president he needs to be held to a higher standard than a mayor of a puerto rican city)
-Handling of the divisive movements of the alt-right and neo-nazi groups.


The list goes on and these things are source-able. Simply go to a government page and look at policy decisions and executive actions taken. Look at his twitter which is a first hand source in today's politics.

That isn't to say I will point out every mistake he makes or search for mistakes in every news story. He made some good decisions but overwhelmingly he has made bad decisions and conducted himself in a less than professional manner.

One such good decision was to declare the Opiod Epidemic as a public health emergency. Unfortunately that wasn;t enough as it only grants access to around 57,000 dollars of funds; while a more beneficial option would have been to declare it a national emergency and have access to funds in the billions.

But it was a move in a positive direction and I give him credit where it is due.

LOL

You think Government sources are credible?

I think government sources are a start. It’s mass information and raw statistics. I don’t look toward policy arguments or laws as data. But I look at census reports and open source data from government agencies as the closest to a reliable source we could come up with. Because if you don’t put faith in something then the only source you can believe is yourself and unless you’ve personally conducted every experiment and survey and census in history then you have no evidence for any claim.

My research tactic for any topic is:
1. Create a thesis
2. Research statistics and research papers from credible sources. Affirming my thesis.
3. Research statistics and research papers from credible sources . Refuting my thesis
4. Research social attitudes on a topic.
5. Conclude

Example:
Thesis- the sun is not hot
Evidence for sun being cold
Evidence for sun being hot
Society generally believes sun is hot.

Conclusion: sun is hot.


Now if society disagrees with the data I dig deeper and look to see if maybe the data isn’t reflecting the actual problem. A good example of this would be the legalization of marijuana. In this field evidence against legalization is weaker than the evidence for it. However statistically marijuana is still viewed as a drug too bad for recreational use. This means I have to figure out why. Is it because of misinformation, are marijuana statistics not being reported. Is the survey pool not reflective of the public. And I dig deeper.

"I think government sources are a start. It’s mass information and raw statistics"

And you believe govt raw statistics are always 100% true and accurate?

If that is your starting place and information is wrong, the rest of your process will be wrong as well.

If you consider context and filter out the bits where the government has reason to bias the info, then yes it’s pretty easy to get a starting picture that’s accurate. Labor statistics are accurate because they tell you exactly what they’re measuring and how, it’s the way officials and media folks portray those statistics that’s misleading about unemployment and new job numbers.

Thanks Prado.

Well I am happy to NOT be a supporter, apologist or propagandarist for a draft dodger...Trump. I could argue about his other character failings with his blinkered and, imho, wilfully stupid supporters, but Trump's "reluctance to serve" is undeniable and the methods he used to avoid military service are inexcusable. It's not like he was a "principled conscientious objector", but clearly he behaved like a selfish coward.

" Labor statistics are accurate because they tell you exactly what they’re measuring and how,"

The govt provided unemployment statistic is one of the least accurate statistics you can find. Lol

It’s correct if you know how to read it.

Wrong.

It doesn't include people who have simply giving up looking for work but remain unemployed.

It’s not everyone who doesn’t have a job, so it’s somewhat misleading how some people use it, but at the same time the absurdly high statistic of everyone who doesn’t have a job is even more misleading because it doesn’t correct for context. The unemployment statistic is based on who is actively seeking a job and is therefore eligible for unemployment benefits. A number that the government would necessarily want to make sure is accurate. But not everyone who doesn’t have a job is seeking one. Stay at home parents or students who would rather focus on their studies are considered in the absurdly high statistic that detractors love to cite, even though those are culturally acceptable reasons not to have a job. It’s accurate if you can fizzle our stuff like that and keep that in mind.

It doesn’t pretend to look for them.

So we agree that the unemployment number is not an accurate gage of the real number of unemployed people in the United States.

Thanks.

It’s accurate if you know what you’re reading.

Also the “real number of unemployed people” is even worse because it’s pessimistic and lacking context. All 5 year olds are unemployed but that’s not a crisis.

open skull.
take out brain.
fill with orange sherbet.
join the alt right.

So we agree that the unemployment number is not an accurate gage of the real number of unemployed people in the United States.
Thanks.

That number is a dumb number. There’s no reason to look for that number.