EatATaco @ EatATaco @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

2,804

Joined

2 yr. ago

Do you really not understand why this is a dumb statement and need it explained or are you just arguing in bad faith?

This is lemmy, the goal is always to shit on America.

things are supposedly getting better where so many things around me are getting worse,

But things are getting better. This isn't to say we don't have a lot of catching up to do, because of the damage that inflation has done, but the overwhelming amount of the numbers make it pretty clear that we are going in the right direction.

I don’t think the metrics used by the media, ie the stock market

This is not at all the metric we are using. You are specifically complaining about unemployment rate. Which is what this post is about. It's funny to bitch about the media being misleading, while complaining about the market not representing the average joe...when the number being discussed in the article is not the market and does represent something good for the average joe.

It's not bullshit. Why would you count stay at home parents who are not looking for a job because they have no interest in them? Why would you count people going to school with the plan of helping themselves out in the future?

It's not perfect because, as you point out, some people get discouraged and drop out. But considering there is a labor shortage right now, this argument doesn't make much sense as these people should be rejoining the work force.

The time during Bidens presidency has been fantastic for me and my family. Both my wife and I got huge pay raises, she then switched jobs for a much better hours and still making bank. We've been saving a lot of money and our investments have skyrocketed. Things are clearly more expensive, but I haven't had to worry about it too much. Also because I live in a fairly well off area, it appears everyone else is doing very well.

Because my personal situation has been so good, should I assume that this is true for everyone in our country? Or should I be smart and recognize that my personal experience is anecdotal and not representative of the whole economy? Should I blame the media too for reporting what's actually happening?

I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned.

Stephen Colbert has a book titled America Again: Re-becoming the Greatness We Never Weren't

Do you actually think this is clever rather than just revealing how dishonest you are?

I could, but I won't.

I believe you would just come up with another reason you "can't" do it, just like being "physically incapable" of it. Add to that I've seen other people already do it and I have no reason to not trust their findings that I think it would be a waste of money to try and convince someone who would probably just ignore their own eyes anyway.

Polls were historically accurate in 2022 and generally do a good job of measuring the temperature. Still, vote like they don't exist.

It's s different with trump because he has already secured the nomination. Biden was just the presumptive nominee, which is why they have no standing because there is no nominee yet.

After that, there is probably a period of time where the wheels are in motion to put people on the ballot where they cannot turn back.

Like do you think the day before the election they could just swap out a candidate? What about printing ballots and distributing them? There has to be some kind of cut off.

Noone is saying you have to put anything in your house or get any type of device.

I'm just saying that you can actually test this, in a way that does not jeopardize your privacy, such as in a controlled lab environment, but you're unwilling to do this. You certainly do not lack the ability to do so.

You can, you're just unwilling.

You can always go and test this instead of just assuming it's true because it's what you already believe is true.

They don't need to listen to your every word. They have so much information on you that they can pinpoint you pretty well. They would like to, but it's too risky. However making it easy for you to give them information willingly, yes please they are on board.

There is no evidence they are actually always processing everything, and people have been trying to prove it for a long time now. But it seems like they do what they say they are doing: listening for wake words.

I also think it’s objectively the right call,

I have no idea. I think it's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. Picking the next nominee is going to be a clusterfuck. Mike Johnson already calling for him to resign. It's going to be challenged in court. This is going to be a constant fight until the election. What about the donors who have give money to Biden, but then don't like whoever they go with? Do they go with Harris? She isn't much more popular and (this isn't me being sexist, but understanding Trump's misogyny) are they really going to run another woman against him? And there is no guarantee that people that need to be swayed are going to be happy with whoever is picked.

But then again, how do you continue with Biden? If the next debate isn't perfect for him, he's doomed. Can they take that risk?

As others have said, Trump did what we expected him to do: lie. We expected/hoped Biden to quell the critics, and he did the opposite of it.

But make no mistake about it, plenty of people pointed out that Trump lied during the debate. The problem is that his cultists think that if he says it, it's true, or complaining that his lies aren't that big so it's not a big deal. Truth and honesty doesn't matter to them anymore. Although, I feel like truth mattering to people is dying across the board.

Red-lining was very deliberately done - at least partially - based on race. Literally even going so far as to label the red-lined areas as "infiltrated."

But that being said, this could very well still be a remnant of red-lining, among the multitude of other ways minorities have been historically put at a disadvantage. So, again, I'm open to an argument that it should still be disallowed. But when you start calling numbers "racist" you're going to lose a lot of people.

In another thread about Grindr going down during the RNC convention, the general opinion is that they are repressed homosexuals and that is why they are fascists. I think Pete hits on, and you sum up, the real reason: some rich gay people feel insulated by their wealth from the problems that republicans might introduce, and think adding even more wealth is the way to go.

There is certainly room for an argument that the system in general feeds back into itself so we should, as a society, make an active effort to undo this feedback loop.

However, if the expected payout in an area is higher, insurance rates in that area are generally going to be higher. This isn't "racist" no matter what context you put it in. It's just cold, objective, and heartless numbers that might be the result of racism.

If a policy ends up charging a specific minority more than others, then that’s probably the point.

The policy ends up making the insurance company money. Why is that not "probably the point"?

Polls were historically accurate in 2022.

But I know the facts don't matter, only the narrative that you bought.