Remember when “Hillary’s emails” were the nation’s biggest buzz words?
Kellyane Conway surely does — it was practically written in her job description to bring them up at any and every opportunity ahead of the election.
And that includes one Tweet that sure looks odd some five months after she fired it off.
Shortly before the election when James Comey, the FBI director, controversially announced a new batch of Hill’s emails were being investigated, Conway Tweeted:
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Most honest people I know are not under FBI investigation, let alone two. https://t.co/UcSmSA5aTj
— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 29, 2016
Well what we’ve learned this week is that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia since July of last year, and is continuing to do so. And now that those ties seem to be growing ever stronger, including today’s allegations that a Trump aide laundered money from a pro-Moscow party, those emails sure are feeling like a whole lot of nothing.
The irony was not lost on Twitter, naturally:
When you're right, ConJob, you're right. https://t.co/VPxb2GgzGh
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) March 20, 2017
Enter this into: "Tweets that haven't aged well" https://t.co/WW4fQAL2au
— Siraj Hashmi (@SirajAHashmi) March 20, 2017
@KellyannePolls me reading this tweet like… pic.twitter.com/SILdJFrOCO
— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) March 20, 2017
This tweet didn’t age very well. #TrumpRussia https://t.co/hMYHyHwOad
— SpinDoctor (@SpinDr) March 20, 2017
Hello ironic old Tweet, how are ya? https://t.co/vzKfuuHPEg
— Kevin Phelan (@KPhed) March 20, 2017
Life comes at you fast, right @KellyannePolls? #TrumpRussia https://t.co/ZVd5C3Qb34
— Cole Ledford (@ColeLedford11) March 20, 2017
.@KellyannePolls well this tweet certainly hasn’t aged well ???
— Jordan (@jordansdiamonds) March 20, 2017
GayEGO
Kellyanne messes up like many of Trump’s picks who don’t seem to know or care that Trump is the real fake!
natekerchel
Well strictly speaking an ‘investigation’ does not imply either guilt or innocence. The result of the investigation however is the important bit. As far as I know it was determined that Clinton did not break any law over those emails. As far as the trump White House goes – well we already know that one trump favourite has had to resign for breaking the law and lying about it. Another is hanging on by his fingernails to his job for the same reasons. This all reminds me of Watergate – initially they limited the damage to low level staff, but persistent digging revealed the law breaking went all the way to the Oval Office. I hope that this is the case again. No doubt some trump minion will accuse me of being ‘unpatriotic’ for saying that. Well if I recognised trump as a legitimate President you might have a case. But for millions of Americans and even more around the world trump has no political legitimacy – whatever he electoral college might say. You will note mhoffman – ever the man for precision – I say ‘political legitimacy’ and not ‘technical legitimacy’. I will be very happy to explain the difference if you need me to – I know your brain is very overworked thinking of ever more bizarre excuses for your vile leader’s behaviour and language.
Karma – or the FBI – will get you in the end.
1EqualityUSA
That annelid in Utah will keep worming his way back to Clinton, pathetic creature that he is.
Sheriff scene in, “Fried Green Tomatoes.” Substitute with Chaffetz and Clinton. The crime being her emails.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rWs4JBCqG8
DMRX
First off…know that I am no trump fan. I voted for Hillary.
But you folks from the UK (assuming based on your use of the Queen’s English) don’t seem to grasp that a different voting system that equally represents 50 states and a staggeringly wide variety of cultures actually makes sense for a country of 318 million people, whereas it doesn’t for a small country with a population of about 1/5 of that.
We understand that a popular vote works fine on your little islands, but there’s a reason we started our country in the first place.
Please respect the difference, even if you don’t understand it.
Giancarlo85
Dmrx, wrong. The electoral college is broken and should be phased out. One state shouldn’t get disproportionate representation simply because they have less people and are republican. You have no clue what you are talking about and I say that as a US voter and citizen.
Voters in certain states are represented disproportionately in the House of Representatives more than others.
If you think all 50 States are represented equally you are delusional.
DMRX
Giancarlo85: If you do away with the EC, then voters in 3 states will get to decide elections. Please explain how that is proportionate by any stretch of the imagination. I’m asking genuinely and respectfully.
Our current system is actually proportioned quite fairly. As far as gerrymandering in some states, that can only be addressed at the state level.
Instead of just telling me I’m wrong (with nothing to back up your claim) and griping that the current system needs to go away… What is your solution? And please don’t say a nationwide popular vote. That will just prove how ignorant you are.
DMRX
Giancarlo85: Also…
I couldn’t help but hear the echo of trump during the debates. “Wrong.” With no facts to back up why he thought it was so. Please don’t stoop to his level.
Giancarlo85
No. It isn’t proportional nor is it fair. And those states with more people naturally deserve more representation.
You obviously don’t read my posts. I want a parliamentary multiparty system based on proportional representation. Not this rubbish system we have right now.
Giancarlo85
You are speaking opinion, not fact. Stop demanding facts from people as you so far have only posted unsupported and inaccurate opinions. There is no way a system that rewards smaller states with more representatives per person is more fair.
So watch your tongue.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 Even though DMRX and myself may differ in some political topics, he is actually right in his assessment of the electoral college. Here’s why.
First, by simply focusing on a popular vote system for President in the US, it opens the possibilities to potential voter fraud. If a candidate or a candidate’s party knows that the person with the most votes wins, it could lead to ballot stuffing in many areas. Which would ultimately lead to extremely strict voter ID laws (something you strongly oppose).
Secondly, it would shape Presidential candidate’s policies to only focus on policy which benefit those in heavily populated cities. A Presidential candidate’s goal is to get the most votes possible so he / she would only campaign in LA, Chicago, NYC, and maybe 2 more heavily populated cities. That candidate would also only advocate for policies which benefit people in those cities and ignore policy creation which would benefit all Americans whether they live in suburban, rural, or more farm centered areas of the country.
Third, it would give rise to extreme candidates on both sides of the aisle. An extreme right-leaning evangelical candidate could start a grass root effort throughout Texas and win the Presidency by solely focusing on bible belt areas by advocating policy centered around a theocracy.
Lastly, you can’t always guarantee that states will vote the way they are voting in your generation. 20 years from now, California may be a red state. Solely relying on popular vote to determine the President would potentially lead to a lifetime of one political party maintaining control over national and foreign policy creating disastrous effects which would take multiple generations to undo. Just because one party won the popular vote this time around, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
I can tell you are mad because you didn’t get what you wanted in the election but that’s how these things work. If Hillary won the electoral college and Trump won the popular vote, would you say she’s illegitimate and not your President? Obviously you wouldn’t and you’d say the other side are a bunch of sore losers.
Plus, I’m not sure why you had to threaten DMRX to watch what he says. He’s allowed to write whatever he wants, just like everyone else.
Giancarlo85
Oh Kellyann.. How about four active investigations and several inquiries like Trumpkins? They are building the case as we speak. Impeachment, indictment and conviction seems likely. Hope Trump enjoys prison stripes.
Giancarlo85
” by simply focusing on a popular vote system for President in the US, it opens the possibilities to potential voter fraud.”
No it doesn’t and you don’t have any proof for that. You’re just making things up at this point.
“If a candidate or a candidate’s party knows that the person with the most votes wins, it could lead to ballot stuffing in many areas. Which would ultimately lead to extremely strict voter ID laws (something you strongly oppose).”
Bald assertion without any real proof. Plenty of developed countries use the popular vote method through proportional representation and a parliamentary system. It works just fine. In fact it is even more fair and encourages turnout.
“it would shape Presidential candidate’s policies to only focus on policy which benefit those in heavily populated cities. ”
Because most people live there?
“That candidate would also only advocate for policies which benefit people in those cities and ignore policy creation which would benefit all Americans whether they live in suburban, rural, or more farm centered areas of the country.”
As compared to giving rural and farming votes more preference over urban votes? You’re lying again.
“An extreme right-leaning evangelical candidate could start a grass root effort throughout Texas and win the Presidency by solely focusing on bible belt areas by advocating policy centered around a theocracy. ”
No they wouldn’t, because a majority of voters don’t reside in the bible belt and 2/3rds of all economic activity occurs in states Hillary won.
“Lastly, you can’t always guarantee that states will vote the way they are voting in your generation. 20 years from now, California may be a red state. Solely relying on popular vote to determine the President would potentially lead to a lifetime of one political party maintaining control over national and foreign policy creating disastrous effects which would take multiple generations to undo. Just because one party won the popular vote this time around, doesn’t mean that will always be the case.”
Another stupid bald assertion from the bald assertion man and his crystal ball.
Go back to brietbart or whatever website you came from where you can just agree with whatever idiot is on that site.
Oh andyou want disastrous effects? Look at this administration, you ignorant moron.
“Obviously you wouldn’t and you’d say the other side are a bunch of sore losers.”
Don’t ever put words in my mouth again, idiot.
Giancarlo85
Oh and I’m not going to respond to one of your verbal diatribes. Don’t bother replying to me.
You obviously have your head so far up Trump’s ass it must be pretty dark up there. You are lock step and defend everything this incredibly unpopular “President” does. By the way, 75 million voters voted against your man (and I’m including third parties).
I’m for proportional representation in a parliamentary system. That avoids extremism quite well. And you talk about extreme candidates? You’re so full of it! TRUMP is an EXTREMIST and he won through the current system.
Germany has a system that is set up through a political party dominated system and having multi-parties mitigates the rise of the fringes. Germany’s upcoming election is basically the Social Democratic Party versus Merkel’s CSU. Third parties also play a significant role, such as the Greens who have served in countless coalition governments.
The only way is a multi-party system with coalition governments. IT is more fair, more representative and ensure the breakage of the two party system.
Learn how to read for once, hoffy. I know reading isn’t the strong suite of a Trump supporter. You remind me of the movie Idiocracy.
Giancarlo85
*Correction: Merkel’s CDU, not CSU.
So yea, if any of the two bit Trump supporters here could read, they would notice I’m in favor of a parliamentary multi-party system. Not strictly a popular vote system.
But these dummies can’t even read basic English.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 Good job by simply responding with a “no” to everything I write without explaining anything.
Rather than analyzing every response you wrote, I’ll pick the ones that stand out the most:
(1) “As compared to giving rural and farming votes more preference over urban votes? You’re lying again.”
(2) “Because most people live there?” [in regards to policy geared only toward major cities]
I never said rural and farming areas get preference over urban or city areas. I merely stated that both should get equal treatment and policies should be crafted to benefit both groups of people and not one over the other. Same goes for the second point. Trump won over 60 million votes, Hillary won over 60 million votes, the majority of the country did not vote. Should we neglect all of these other people and only focus on the 60+ million (out of a nation of over 300 million) who voted for Hillary?
(3) “2/3rds of all economic activity occurs in states Hillary won”
This is a misleading statistic and is ignoring your very principle which is that every vote is equal. You’re acting as if Hillary won 100% of the voters in those states. In actuality, the people Trump won accounted for 54% of economic revenue and 63% of tax revenue. If you’re going to focus on the popular vote argument, provide your statistics showing aggregate vote statistics and not state-won statistics which would essentially support an electoral college argument.
I also forgot to add, here is the BIGGEST weakness of relying solely on the popular vote in the US. What if a candidate only focuses on targeting white voters and straight voters? They comprise the majority of citizens and the majority of voters. Relying solely on the popular vote, takes away the voice of minorities in the country and will shape policy as such.
Giancarlo85
Another verbal diatribe and verbal diarrhea from a man who knows very, very little about anything going on in this country. I don’t even know why I should bother replying to this clown anymore. It’s obvious he is lock-step with Trump and will defend anything and everything the man does.
“In actuality, the people Trump won accounted for 54% of economic revenue and 63% of tax revenue.”
Nope.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 You should do research on exit polling data showing voter income and who they voted for as well as researching what happens if only tax payers vote and how the election maps greatly change before you claim I’m wrong.
Giancarlo85
“You should do research on exit polling data showing voter income and who they voted for as well as researching what happens if only tax payers vote and how the election maps greatly change before you claim I’m wrong.”
He’s lying once again and posting bullshit wihtout backing it up.
Most of Trump supporters were poor whites without a college degree… people like you.
Most wealthier better educated people voted for Hillary, as well as minorities.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 Are you sure when you say, “Most wealthier people voted for Hillary”
New York Times disagrees with you https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
Giancarlo85
This guy doesn’t even know how to read the articles he post. Must be some sort of learning disability.
natekerchel
ok DMRX – lets clear up some things you make assumptions about – first of all , because I live in UK does not automatically mean I am British. In fact I work for an American bank here in London – been here for 2 years now. Secondly – I understand the American political system very well my friend – apart from being a political activist for some years politics and history were the subjects of my first university degree. Thirdly – the people whom left the UK in the 17th century left so that they could continue with their own brand of religious discrimination – a practice that continues to this day. Americans are taught a distorted version of reality – they were not fleeing persecution in England – they were leaving to practice their own. Fourthly – even Americans can speak correct English. You make so many assumptions – all of them wrong. Fifthly – if you bother to investigate you will find that the founding fathers chose an electoral college because they did not trust the ordinary voters to choose a good President. That no longer applies. India with a population 4 times that of the USA uses a perfectly workable system that represents the different peoples who populate it – so that nonsense does not stand up either. There is no defence for a candidate who does not get the most votes in a national election to be given the top job – it simply is not democratic or legitimate.
natekerchel
A p.s. DMRX – Giancarlo is correct. Oddly, just subvert the arguments used by mhoffman and the evidence is there. Candidates only ever focus on a tiny number of States – the so called swing States. So a disproportionate amount of time and money is used on these States. The voters in these States are likely to have a far greater influence on the candidates agenda if they want to secure the votes in that State. Other criticisms are more obvious in terms of the electoral college – the distribution of State votes is unfair – one candidate gets all college votes even if 49% voted for the other candidate. There is no State where 100% of the votes are for just one candidate. In the event that an election decision has to be made by Congress, each State has one vote – so Rhode Island has the same weight as California. These are the reasons for abolition of the college and the introduction of direct Presidential election. Every other election in the USA id direct so why not the Presidential one?.
Giancarlo85
California could have had 100% turnout and it wouldn’t have mattered. They focus on states like Ohio and Florida, and that simply is wrong. These states peddle their agenda onto the bigger states with more people. These guys are basically saying we in California should have less say (and perhaps even less than we do now) because we don’t like their man Trump.
By the way, California is going to stay democrat for generations. This state is far too different politically than swing states. It has evovled too much and is no longer white majority.
I am for a system of proportional representation and parliament. I also want to see a multiparty situation like Holland and Germany. Coalition governments are more representative of the people.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 Without being conscious of it, you just supported the argument of why relying on the popular vote is bad.
You said, “They focus on states like Ohio and Florida, and that simply is wrong. These states peddle their agenda onto the bigger states with more people” to then later say “By the way, California is going to stay democrat for generations. This state is far too different politically than swing states”.
So we as a democratic Republic should allow 1 state which you said is so far different politically than other states to dictate our nation policies and President? The policies which work for 1 state do not work for all states. Things that might work in California (huge tax breaks for the movie industry, lax immigration laws, and tax incentives for Silicon Valley) wouldn’t have the same benefit in a place like Florida, Ohio, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, etc.
Giancarlo85
The lying idiot Hoffy is back at it. I said I’m for a system of proportional representation based on a parliamentary system. Is that so hard to read? You keep lying. Eventually you’ll end up with a big nose like your little man from all the lying that you do.
By the way, lax immigration laws? You’re an idiot. States don’t set immigration laws. Stupid blithering idiot.
Giancarlo85
Hoffman belongs to the idiocracy movement. No brain required. He doesn’t even know what he is talking about and his diatribes about the dangers of the popular vote are a load of crap. The electoral college simply is NOT working. We need a system that is based on proportional representation and a true multi-party parliamentary system.
He won’t f-cking read and I’ve just about have had enough of it.
“Without being conscious of it, you just supported the argument of why relying on the popular vote is bad.”
You’re an idiot and everything I have said consistently goes right over your head.
Giancarlo85
““In actuality, the people Trump won accounted for 54% of economic revenue and 63% of tax revenue.””
Look guys… at this stupid statement. Just some more dumb shit Hoffy boy made up. The states with the most economic revenue and tax revenue are blue states that vote majority blue. The states that rely on welfare and have less tax revenue are predominantly republican states.
Never let it pass Hoffyboy to make stupid shit up.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 I said PEOPLE not STATES. Please take the time to read carefully. Hillary Clinton won the majority of voters who make $0 – $50,000 / year. Trump won every income bracket above $50,000. Those people pay more in taxes.
Giancarlo85
That’s wrong too. Sorry. Hillary won most of the voters who were in upper income brackets. The richest counties in this country are majority democrat. You’re still a liar.
Giancarlo85
NOTICE how he expects me to take his word at it. Trump won mostly poor whites and they make far less. Most of them don’t have college educations and make less than $30,000. So much for that tax base. He’s lying again.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 So the New York Times is lying then with the exiting polling in regards to income?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html
Giancarlo85
Again, he can’t even read what he posts. Most economic centers (2/3rds) voted for Hillary, and that is where 2/3rds of all economic activity occurs. Urban centers are the economic centers of this country and they overwhelmingly went for Hillary.
Giancarlo85
Notice how he’s running away from my points about proportional representation…
I’m done here. My job is done.
iggy6666
LOL. “I’M DONE HERE. MY JOB IS DONE”…….
Yes. You’re certainly doing a fantastic job being a wannabe know it all spaz turd. I see your name has flooded all the comment sections again. Worse then a dog marking it’s territory. Don’t worry one day you’ll lift that leg high enough to hit where the big boys do.
You’re relentless and desperate. Not much has changed since your last breakdown unfortunately….. did you at least figure out where you live? Is it LA or Orlando? You seem confused last time as you were caught lying about residents……..
Giancarlo85
Aw look at who it is… Surprise! Another Trump troll lol. I’m not flooding anything. Only one doing that are the Trump trolls.
Thanks for sharing your story. You have anything else you want to share?
I never said I lived in Orlando. Are you still chasing after underage kids on that other site? The FBI might be investigating you now too! 🙂
Giancarlo85
Oh and one other question.. How much are you getting paid to troll here, Iggy? Enough to keep your studio apartment? You told me hookers are always in front of your building. Just curious.
Your obsession with me is creepy lol.
iggy6666
Wow. Three separate replies to one comment of mine…. you really out did yourself Giancrazy. I like the added ALTERNATIVE FACTS you pulled out of your purse mentioning hookers, studio apartments, underage children and my “obsession” with you… It shows your aptitude for lying. Now run along and continue defectating the name Giancarlo in all the article comment sections.
Heywood Jablowme
Proportional representation & a multi-party system sounds appealing (to me at least) but there’s no way to get there. The only conceivable method would be a constitutional convention, but if that happened it would be far more likely to be taken over by right-wing lunatics who’d turn us into a theocracy.
There’s no point in even talking about such an unrealistic notion. Even changing the primary system, never mind the electoral college, is pretty much impossible.
natekerchel
Before she was elected as a Senator, Clinton said that she would introduce a Bill to abolish the Electoral College. It never happened of course. Because the two party system , which the college protects, suits the two parties. If you look at similar international examples, the best is the UK to compare with USA – even though that is parliamentary system. They have the same ‘first past the post ‘ system for Westminster elections. That produces two alternative majority governments in the main. Those parties have refused to introduce proportional representation because it would end their automatic, alternate spells in power. All the other elections in the UK are done using PR. So in the USA – all elections bar the Presidential are first past the post – which you can just about get away with calling democratic. Th exception is the Presidential election. We know the historical reason for this – but it does not stand up any more.
And just to remind mhoffman who is forever on about evidence – if a Presidential election were to be decided by Congress – as is the law in certain circumstances – and each State has one vote, as is the law, then the small numbers in Rhode Island have a disproportionate weight given to their votes over every other State. How can that be fair? Everything that mhoffman has used to defend the college can be used against it. ‘Swing States’ are given unfair advantage at Presidential election time and their wishes are pandered to in order to get them on side – all at the expense of the other 40 States.
Giancarlo85
Yea. It was a bit of wishful thinking on my part. The system is too screwed up and distorted to possibly have a move to a multiparty parliamentary system.
Jack Meoff
WOW the Trump trolls came out thick and fast for this one. They must all be working overtime to get to all the websites and try to redirect the topic away from Trump’s crooked dealings.
Giancarlo85
Iggy. I feel bad for you.
I don’t want to date you nor am I interested in you. Please leave me alone lol.
natekerchel
One final point for you to consider mhoffman – 74% of the American people entitled to vote did NOT vote for trump. That is why he has no political legitimacy. No other President has been elected on this basis, even by using the anachronistic and corrupt electoral college.
mhoffman953
Interesting use of words. I assume when you say American people “entitled” to vote you are counting the entire country and not the number of people who actually voted because trying to verify your numbers I can’t find where you are getting that number from.
Giancarlo85
Hoffy is lying and distorting again.
natekerchel
A typical trump voter is white, older, nationalistic, non-college/university, low income/welfare. It is very likely that they are also racist and homophobic. I agree that not everyone who voted for trump is all or any of these things -but for sure ALL racists, homophobes and misogynists who voted will have voted for trump.
natekerchel
The top 5 States for paying food stamps are all Republican controlled. If you want evidence look it up – I already did.
mhoffman953
Per capita, its 2 out of 5, if we extend that out of 10 then its 7 out of 10, which is terrible. You think our former President would’ve done something to help people get jobs or earn a living wage so that 43 million Americans aren’t dependent on Food Stamps.
Obama might as well be known as the Food Stamps President because never in American history has this many Americans been on Food Stamps.
Roughly 1 out of 7 Americans are on Food Stamps. I’m not saying to rid the country of the program as it helps seniors, the disabled, and people who inexplicably fall on hard times, but 43 million is a staggering number to occur within the last President’s term.
If we want to break it down by race, we can do that as well. Obviously more participants are white because there are more white people in this nation. White people compose 20 million of the participants on Food Stamps and make up 198 million of the population meaning 10% of white people are on Food Stamps (1 in 10). If we do the same for the black population, 15 million are on Food Stamps while they make up 45 million of the population resulting in 33% (1 in 3) on Food Stamps. You think the first black President would’ve helped these people.
I voted for Obama in 2008 thinking he would bring about change. This wasn’t the change he promised or what many Americans were expecting.
natekerchel
I thought I was very clear – I will repeat it for you. Turnout was 57% – trump got 46% of that. That equates to 26% of ALL entitled voters whether or not they registered or voted. So it still stands – 74% of Americans entitled to vote did not vote for him. It’s a simple equation. No doubt you will say that my figures are unfair. But not so – they are just factual. Not registering does not alter the fact that you are entitled to register and vote. You choose not to – that in itself is a vote. Yes I know you will say it is all smoke and mirrors – still does not alter the fact that trump only got 26% of all possible votes.
By the way – we will agree to disagree on your welfare claims – I can produce ‘evidence’ that shows a vey different thing to what you are claiming. And I am very sure you will say the same. However, go the websites for he individual States and look at their published figures – especially the racist homophobic trump loving southern States like Arkansas, Louisiana and Mississippi. Then compare those figures with all other States. It might take you a while I have to say – I spent several hours going through them all.
Giancarlo85
Hoffy is lying. Obama saved this country from total economic collapse. The economy improved dramatically. Certain white people are angry because minorities are getting more opportunities. Don’t lie.
By the way, your vilification of food stamps shows how out of touch you are. People weren’t getting them before and were starving. Many kids were starving, and in Texas many kids go to bed with nothing to eat. That is the reality caused by Republicans. Most people on food stamps percentage wise are in Republican States.
Giancarlo85
Why is child poverty so disturbingly high in states like Texas, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina? Why is child hunger a big factor in those states? Do you somehow blame Obama for expanding food stamp programs so working class people can have access to food?
By the way, food stamps have a 2 to 1 economic advantage.
You calling him a food stamp President shows you are an idiot.
mhoffman953
@Giancarlo85 LOL and what is this economic advantage to food stamps?
I think it would be better for the government to provide better paying jobs to those people so they can put food on the table for their families rather than making them dependent on the government. Just as they say, “give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime”.
Those people in those states want jobs and not handouts, that’s why they voted for the promise of economic change. It’s not because they hate minorities as I pointed out that 1 in 3 black people are on Food Stamps, 1 in 10 white people are on Food Stamps, and in total 43 million Americans are on Food Stamps. How is placing people on government assistance instead of providing quality jobs beneficial to our economic output?
natekerchel
Twisting the story again mhoffman – the issue you took issue with concerned Republican States and welfare. You denied that the top welfare paying States are Republican controlled. But they are. No one is saying that it would not be better if people had decent jobs with a good income. The one point I will concede is that there will always be a level of unemployment in a system that is base on capitalism. Hence the need for a welfare system of some kind and why we should ALL pay our taxes – and not seek to avoid them. It is not surprise that the States with the highest levels of welfare support are those where educational standards are below he national average, where racism and homophobia are inbred from birth – and of course are Republican controlled.