Who has Trump sexually assaulted? And what the hell does that have to do with unequal rights or some other nonsense?
Court filings against Trump for sexual assault:
- Inana Trump, 1989
- Jill Harth, 1992
- Summer Zervos, 2007
- Alva Johnson 2019
Public allegations of sexual assault just since 2016
- Jessica Leads, 1980s
- Kristin Anderson. 1990s
- E. Jean Carroll, 1995-1996
- Lisa Boyne, 1996
- Cathy Heller, 1997
- Temple McDowell, 1997
- Karena Virginia 1998
- Mind McGllivray, 2003
- Jennifer Murphy, 2005
- Rachel Crooks, 2005
- Juliet Huddy, 2005-2006
- Jessica Drake 2006
- Ninni Laaksonen 2006
- Cassandra Searles 2013
And then there's Trump's own admission:
It's one of the biggest indicators of how the economy is doing.
When all you look at is corporate earnings, yeah.
I take it then that you don't support Warren or Sanders, considering how much their plans would increase spending, right? Or is this another case of a Democrat worrying about the deficit only while a republican is in office?
No, I worry about the deficit regardless of who is in office. Where I start getting vocal is when we pump up the deficit as a handout to the wealthy. We've already talked about this.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/CheapAptHoopoe-mobile.mp4
What does one have to do with the other? We've had stangant real wages since the 60s or something, that doesn't negate low unemployment.
You cited low unemployment as a sign of the economy. If we take a simplistic look of straight "supply vs demand" then we should be seeing wages go up when unemployment is low - we aren't seeing that happen. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it's because people are working more low-wage jobs, driving down the unemployment numbers but not actually being able to get out of lower incomes despite the work.
Give me an example of institutional racism and a racist policy. I'd say the war on poverty under LBJ (a Democrat) was racist but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.
Who mentioned LBJ or Democrats at all? Can't you go a single post without a Whatabout moment? We've been over this multiple times, I'm not indulging you again.
That makes no sense; correlation, causation, etc. Again, give me an example of Trump's racist policy.
Again, we've been over this going back to his management of housing in the 1980s - feel free to go over it again, because I'm disinclined to post it for the third or fourth time just because you demand a review.
Where's your data that shows that more people are working more jobs than, say, under Obama or Bush? And even if that's the case, isn't the implication then that people were unable to find a second or a third job under Obama and now they can, which would mean that there are more jobs available?
First, Obama was handed an economy that tanked within weeks of his taking office, the economic recovery is probably what he will be known for more than anything. Second, do you really want to build on the idea that people need 2-3 jobs to survive, because that sounds dystopian as hell. "Yeah, people have to work 80-90 hours per week to get by, look how awesome the economy is that they have that amazing opportunity." You sound like a caricature of a shitty villain.
Stocks do not represent corporate profits
Stocks are a function of people's disposable income (i.e. how much money they are willing and able to invest) and the people's perception of the health and direction of the economy (i.e. they will invest more if they think that they economy is doing well and therefore their investment will bring a positive return).
Right, so a company's stock doesn't go up when they have a good earnings report with lots of profit?
Okay, it's a function of disposable income, so the market is a gauge of how well the people with money are doing - and since more and more money is concentrated in so few, those people have lots of money to invest and make even more money. Thus, wealth continues to grow at the top as companies strive for better quarterly reports as a way to pander to their wealthy investors rather than paying workers a living wage. Does that make it any clearer for you? I thought you studied finance or economics or something.
'd like to see some research that specifically shows that Americans aren't investing because they're "trying to make ends meet".
Sure, let me find a source for you that you might listen to. Oh, here's one.
Stocks are a function of people's disposable income
As I established earlier, only about half of Americans have anything in the market - so what does that say about their "disposable income"?
What? I'm not wealthy or in the top 10% but I get dividends and my 401k has increased quite a bit in this economy. Where is this myth coming from that only the rich have anything to do with the stock market??
First, I never said only the rich have anything invested, I posted the breakdown of who has what invested and who has nothing invested. Now, add a couple of decimal points to your portfolio. Now add a couple more. And just like that you are making money just because you have money. How about the myth that anyone can become rich if they work hard enough?