He was probably referencing the historical party platforms
Okay, but the Dems were under 50% on the same topic in the early 2,000s.
1 Like
About the same time period when their constituents started to also support gay marriage, right?
I wonder what those numbers were in 1900. I then wonder what it means for today.
In 1900 if you tried to poll people about their thoughts on “gay marriage” they’d either stare at you blankly, run you out of town on a rail, or agree that they’re all for “happy” (gay) marriages. Lol
2 Likes
I have no idea. I just see a trend line that has pretty much gone up since the early 2000s regardless of party or religion at what looks like about the same rate.
And the other side wants to lavish one additional relationship, a pointless arrangement–leaving yet a multitude of other possible human arrangements behind–with state sponsored honors, title, and benefits. Whoop-dee-do…
Same relative rate or same absolute rate?
Edit: NVM I see it
Having marriage problems?
Riiiiiiiight…
Just because it isn’t working out for you doesn’t make the institution…
Riiiiiiight. My gosh.
I think what they mean is we all knew they were full of shit from day 1… Unless its your own dick or own vag nobody really cares as long as (insert dude here) gets your agenda done… I think both dems rebs and anyone fits that mold but untill recent rebs had a good front
I’m convinced that under Trump, “the fix is in”, and the stock market is legitimately “safer” than bonds LOLLL.
This is why BS like the Cohn resignation is spun as something detrimental to the stock market. How else can the “American zaibatsu” get the sheep (the people) to believe that they need the “expertise” of the financial machinery to help them invest? True interwebZ story: some dude said his Fidelity financial adviser called him before that recent mini flash crash to warn him that the stock market looked toppish. Before!..
Don’t hate the game, play the cards you’re dealt. My .02
Saw an article headline “the globalists just lost their president” with the Cohn resignation.
All of the domestic steel stocks are up. Car makers are down a bit. If this is just a lever to renegotiate deals… it kinda makes sense… kinda.
Just don’t understand why everyone but the US is allowed to have trade restriction. But when we do it it’s Armageddon.
1 Like
Because free market people are fuckin loud
I would agree with them, if the other countries actually practiced free trade as well. They don’t.
1 Like
I wouldn’t. No time in recorded history has the “free market” actually existed. It’s a concept, like communism. You can’t fix human nature
1 Like
-
We both conflated “free market” with “free trade”, while they’re two different things. One describes markets in general while the 2nd refers to trade policies between nations.
-
Perfect is the enemy of the good. While you are correct that laissez faire capitalism has never existed (and can’t exist with nation states), it’s not unreasonable to fight for the free-est markets possible.
1 Like
Free trade is simply the global/regional/etc compilation of various levels of free market, imo. They go really hand in hand as soon as the view isn’t street level.
But the loud people who drown the conversation in “free market at the cost of all else” nonsense aren’t looking for good. They’re looking for a fantasy.
In a global marketplace with currency manipulation, varying levels of tariffs and taxes, cutthroat competition for employers (aka, keep your people more employed than the other party) you can stick your finger in your ears and scream “All tariffs are bad tariffs, all taxes are bad taxes” all the way up until the rest of the world leaves us in their dust.
But shit, we don’t need to worry about what other countries are doing. This is 'Murica. The big picture can fuck off.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
2 Likes