Jobless claims are at their lowest levels since 1969. 199K.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait - I thought America was going to crumble when Trump got elected???Jobless claims are at their lowest levels since 1969. 199K.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
All that want to work have jobs. Those who Obama allowed to stay home for two years and draw government subsidies found their new haven in supporting more free stuff. MILLIONS of good paying jobs unfilled across America. Signs at every plant, "HELP WANTED". Millions of able-bodied laying at home waiting on their Obama checks.Jobless claims are at their lowest levels since 1969. 199K.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
So Trump continued the trend that started under Obama. Good for him. But hey my 401k has taken a major beating so you gotta take the bad with the good I suppose.
So Trump continued the trend that started under Obama. Good for him. But hey my 401k has taken a major beating so you gotta take the bad with the good I suppose.
Also, federal workers are conspicuously absent from these numbers but we really shouldn't expect Trumpers to understand data.
Yeah, thanks Obama!So Trump continued the trend that started under Obama. Good for him. But hey my 401k has taken a major beating so you gotta take the bad with the good I suppose.
Yeah, thanks Obama!So Trump continued the trend that started under Obama. Good for him. But hey my 401k has taken a major beating so you gotta take the bad with the good I suppose.
Well - that's squarely on Nancy.Also, federal workers are conspicuously absent from these numbers but we really shouldn't expect Trumpers to understand data.
It is amazing the hate for Trump. Good news on the unemployment numbers and they attack. They are still waiting on the factual news against Trump. Now we are arresting Stone because he lied. Going to destroy him like Flynn. These guys really swayed our vote.All that want to work have jobs. Those who Obama allowed to stay home for two years and draw government subsidies found their new haven in supporting more free stuff. MILLIONS of good paying jobs unfilled across America. Signs at every plant, "HELP WANTED". Millions of able-bodied laying at home waiting on their Obama checks.
And yet all of us got into and graduated from Purdue - shocking!Also, federal workers are conspicuously absent from these numbers but we really shouldn't expect Trumpers to understand data.
It is amazing the hate for Trump. Good news on the unemployment numbers and they attack. They are still waiting on the factual news against Trump. Now we are arresting Stone because he lied. Going to destroy him like Flynn. These guys really swayed our vote.
Can you remember back to December when Republicans held the House, Senate and Presidency? When the House and Senate passed bills but Trump refused to sign and shut down the government instead? Is a month too far back to remember what happened?Well - that's squarely on Nancy.
It's cute when the dumbest person on this board (by a wide margin) questions others intelligence. If nothing else, you do make me chuckle.Can you remember back to December when Republicans held the House, Senate and Presidency? When the House and Senate passed a bill but Trump refused to sign and shut down the government instead? Is a month too far back to remember what happened?
So does that mean you can or can't remember back to a whole month ago and what happened? Either you can remember and are purposefully being dense or you can't remember and that's a whole other issue. It must suck when those pesky facts keep getting in the way of all of your arguments.It's cute when the dumbest person on this board (by a wide margin) questions others intelligence. If nothing else, you do make me chuckle.
Well - that's squarely on Nancy.Also, federal workers are conspicuously absent from these numbers but we really shouldn't expect Trumpers to understand data.
Jobless claims are at their lowest levels since 1969. 199K.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...excludes-u-s-shutdown-victims?srnd=markets-vp
Well - that's squarely on Nancy.
Well - that's squarely on Nancy.
Trump preemptively gladly took credit for the shutdown.
Even when there are receipts, Trumps base breaks out the revisionist history. It’s kind of amazing really.
What shutdown? It's over now, at least for 3 weeks.Trump preemptively gladly took credit for the shutdown.
The fool took the exact same deal that was there 35 days ago, except he lost even more support from his base and independents for his pointless stunt. At this point, the only Trump supporters left are the ones that have been so indoctrinated over the years that they would drink poison koolaid if he asked them to.What shutdown? It's over now, at least for 3 weeks.
Uh, no. He has a deal to now to work on border security, including a barrier. Previously, the Ds would not even talk to the Rs about that. In order for border security and immigration reform to happen both parties need to work together.The fool took the exact same deal that was there 35 days ago, except he lost even more support from his base and independents for his pointless stunt. At this point, the only Trump supporters left are the ones that have been so indoctrinated over the years that they would drink poison koolaid if he asked them to.
Uh, no. He has a deal to now to work on border security, including a barrier. Previously, the Ds would not even talk to the Rs about that. In order for border security and immigration reform to happen both parties need to work together.
Who knows. Things could break down again after 3 weeks and Trump could declare a national emergency, which would then trigger multiple lawsuits, especially in the 9th Circuit. You know, the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court because the 9th Circuit tries to legislate from the bench and doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the Constitution or the separation of powers doctrine.
Uh, no. He has a deal to now to work on border security, including a barrier. Previously, the Ds would not even talk to the Rs about that. In order for border security and immigration reform to happen both parties need to work together.The fool took the exact same deal that was there 35 days ago, except he lost even more support from his base and independents for his pointless stunt. At this point, the only Trump supporters left are the ones that have been so indoctrinated over the years that they would drink poison koolaid if he asked them to.
Who knows. Things could break down again after 3 weeks and Trump could declare a national emergency, which would then trigger multiple lawsuits, especially in the 9th Circuit. You know, the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court because the 9th Circuit tries to legislate from the bench and doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the Constitution or the separation of powers doctrine.
LOL I didn't lose anything.Take the L, dude. You’re embarrassing yourself.
This is false propaganda? Of course you'll try to cite left-wing funded "fact checkers" like snopes and politifact, but the reality is 80% of the Ninth District's cases that were reviewed by the USSC between 1999 - 2008 were either reversed or vacated. The 9th Circuit had by far more cases reviewed by the USSC during that period than any other district. 9th had 140 reversed or vacated and the next closest (6th Circuit) had 51! The Federal District had a slightly higher rate of cases reversed or vacated at 83%, on a much lower number of cases reviewed overall (30).Again, you have the false propaganda about the 9th Circuit down pat. You hear something through a fake news outlet and just run with it. What kind of self examination will it take to be constantly wrong but never admit it?
This is false propaganda? Of course you'll try to cite left-wing funded "fact checkers" like snopes and politifact, but the reality is 80% of the Ninth District's cases that were reviewed by the USSC between 1999 - 2008 were either reversed or vacated. The 9th Circuit had by far more cases reviewed by the USSC during that period than any other district. 9th had 140 reversed or vacated and the next closest (6th Circuit) had 51! The Federal District had a slightly higher rate of cases reversed or vacated at 83%, on a much lower number of cases reviewed overall (30).
Maybe you're the one who is citing propaganda and not facts. Are you going to dispute numbers from the American Bar Association?
https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
...the 9th Circuit...the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court because the 9th Circuit tries to legislate from the bench and doesn't seem to have a good grasp of the Constitution or the separation of powers doctrine.
What a blatant case of attempting to use statistics to support a position to which they are not relevant. Your opinion is that they "legislate from the bench" but the statistics (and I am confident the language of the cases themselves) in no way show that is occurring, only that the Supreme Court has for some reason specific to each individual case disagreed with the 9th Circuit during the selected time frame in .1226% of the total cases resolved by the 9th Circuit. That means the Supreme Court has found no error in 99.8774% of the 9th Circuits opinions. Those numbers are a far cry from them being constantly overturned as you allege.This is false propaganda? Of course you'll try to cite left-wing funded "fact checkers" like snopes and politifact, but the reality is 80% of the Ninth District's cases that were reviewed by the USSC between 1999 - 2008 were either reversed or vacated. The 9th Circuit had by far more cases reviewed by the USSC during that period than any other district. 9th had 140 reversed or vacated and the next closest (6th Circuit) had 51! The Federal District had a slightly higher rate of cases reversed or vacated at 83%, on a much lower number of cases reviewed overall (30).
Maybe you're the one who is citing propaganda and not facts. Are you going to dispute numbers from the American Bar Association?
https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf
Yet, the 9th Circuit was shown to have a higher rate of cases reviewed, reversed and/or vacated than the other circuits based on the data provided.What a blatant case of attempting to use statistics to support a position to which they are not relevant. Your opinion is that they "legislate from the bench" but the statistics (and I am confident the language of the cases themselves) in no way show that is occurring, only that the Supreme Court has for some reason specific to each individual case disagreed with the 9th Circuit during the selected time frame in .1226% of the total cases resolved by the 9th Circuit. That means the Supreme Court has found no error in 99.8774% of the 9th Circuits opinions. Those numbers are a far cry from them being constantly overturned as you allege.
So you're arguing such serves to validate your assertion of the 9th Circuit being "the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court," while your own cited statistics demonstrate an adverse action by the Supreme Court in 140 of the 9th Circuit's 114,199 decided cases (.1226% rate).Yet, the 9th Circuit was shown to have a higher rate of cases reviewed, reversed and/or vacated than the other circuits based on the data provided.
You seem to not comprehend something basic here. The USSC doesn't have the bandwith to review 60,000 cases a year itself. They review and rule on the ones they believe have or may have errors in the lower court rulings. Usually, law clerks help tee up cases which seem to have or do have questionable rulings in the lower courts.So you're arguing such serves to validate your assertion of the 9th Circuit being "the one that constantly gets overturned by the Supreme Court," while your own cited statistics demonstrate an adverse action by the Supreme Court in 140 of the 9th Circuit's 114,199 decided cases (.1226% rate).
Got it. Great argument. Guess you got me there with those stats.