You guys take everything Trump says so literally. Most Americans don't.

Carrier?

Right, Trump saves about a 1000 jobs and is lauded as a savior, Obama saved over a million in the auto industry and is labeled by some a failure.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/12/01/fox-news-cheers-trump-over-1000-carrier-jobs-denounced-obama-saving-15-million-auto-industry-jobs/214676

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I am a bit annoyed at the insinuation....

LOL! Did I annoy you? I thought we were having a fun conversation!

And I am a bit annoyed at the hypocrisy of the left/socialists/progressive/communist/marxists in here.

Phew! Oh good. I thought you were talking about me for a moment there.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/738852/British-Muslims-Sharia-Law-enforced-UK-Islam-poll

Only 4 in 10? That's only a few...

TFTFY. Sadly, ignoring *the truth* doesn't make it go away.

From your source:

When it came to 9/11, 31 per cent of Muslims quizzed in the survey thought the US Government was to blame while 7 per cent blamed "the Jews".

In contrast, only 4 per cent thought the terror group Al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York Twin Towers and other targets.

Only 31 per cent are on board with the Alex Jones/InfoWars view, there might be some hope for British Muslims after all ...

Among the numerous views held by those espousing “9/11 truth,” one central idea remains the same: The United States government is complicit in the September 11, 2001 terror attacks.

(source : http://www.infowars.com/its-time-to-admit-the-911-truthers-were-right/)

From WTC Building 7 to evidence of demolition, subverted intelligence, the al Qaeda hoax and political grandstanding, nothing from the official story adds up… and there is every reason to persevere in the fight to bring the truth to the public’s attention.

(source : http://www.infowars.com/911-inside-job-ten-years-later/)

If one of Trump's trusted circle does not believe al Qaeda was involved, in the 9/11 attack on the USA why should British Muslims?

This might be an example of "post-truth".

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Alex Jones:)
Million laughs.
He is about trustworthy as Alexander Dugin in Russia!

What counts as a failing economy in a post-truth society:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/12/02/employment-situation-november

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

And in their (the politicians of both parties) obsession to game that number half of America ended making less than 30k a year.

It doesn't matter if there's ZERO unemployment.*

What matters is a teacher in San Fran can't afford to live in San Fran.


*It used to. Not anymore.

2. I am more conservative than liberal and a bit annoyed at feeling dumped into the liberal bucket by the insinuation that the non-acceptance of mysticism is "hate speech".

It seems that any non-acceptance of the Tea-Trump script is "liberal" It seems like this script must be swallowed like koolaid. It seems to have all the fervor and characteristics of a religious belief. Why the mystic example seemed appropriate. It does seem to have caused "losing it" to explode all over the forum.

The only crying I hear is coming from Trump supporters, because they now realize they have to grow up and govern; all blame is upon them.

---

So true.

And in their (the politicians of both parties) obsession to game that number half of America ended making less than 30k a year.

It doesn't matter if there's ZERO unemployment.*

What matters is a teacher in San Fran can't afford to live in San Fran.


*It used to. Not anymore.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/business/economy/us-census-household-income-poverty-wealth-2015.html?_r=0 - you have better data than the census bureau? Or a different definition of "median"?

The median household’s income in 2015 was $56,500, up 5.2 percent from the previous year — the largest single-year increase since record-keeping began in 1967, the Census Bureau said on Tuesday. The share of Americans living in poverty also posted the sharpest decline in decades.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Errrm, that's "household".

Legally a "household" is any entity claiming themselves (and dependents if any) on their taxes, From the IRS's perspective, my girlfriend is a separate household than me even though we live together.

Errrm, that's "household".

Yes, and there is no data for person as income tax has a married category where both are lumped together. But I suppose if you count all the babies you can get to a real small number per person so the datum doesn't have its pants on fire.

---

You really can't tell "worker" is implied here? Seriously? Babies?

It's SIMPLE and Weighs a TON. Actually, Lighter than Air.

CRYBABY Lame Stream Media gunna Hold DEALmeister Accountable fO EVERYTHANG.

2007-2017, Hustlin'PitifulPeacePrizin'Hussein Free Ride on dA Media Train comes to A Halt.

Simple Yap Ain't Heavy, Beeez My Broheim.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Errrm, that's "household".

At least I provided a source. What's yours for the "half of America ended making less than 30k a year" claim?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You really can't tell "worker" is implied here? Seriously? Babies?

Without a source for the number and a methodology of collecting it, no!

---

Yes you did. But I don't think you spent a lot of time letting the info in your source sink in.

Those numbers are abysmal in historical context and downright offensive when compared to US economic growth.

Smarter people than you got this wrong too, so don't feel bad.

In fact, only just recently Hillary's Corporate Democrats gave us the "gift" of Trump.

Because Trump out-lefted Hillary on this particular issue and the Rust-Belt bought it.

BTW, links are great and can contain useful info but books are always a better "source".

So the links below are just a stepping-stone... not a "source".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

You really can't tell "worker" is implied here? Seriously? Babies?

Without a source for the number and a methodology of collecting it, no!

You guys don't have keyboards?

You really can't tell "worker" is implied here? Seriously? Babies?

Without a source for the number and a methodology of collecting it, no!

You guys don't have keyboards?

Yes, but with the massive amount of dis-information published finding what you thought was a good source .....

As to that wiki source I see it includes all over 15, so it includes retired as workers and in school as workers as well as homemaker as worker, a considerable number of zero's being included in the average.

---

Yes you did. But I don't think you spent a lot of time letting the info in your source sink in.

Those numbers are abysmal in historical context and downright offensive when compared to US economic growth.

Smarter people than you got this wrong too, so don't feel bad.

In fact, only just recently Hillary's Corporate Democrats gave us the "gift" of Trump.

Because Trump out-lefted Hillary on this particular issue and the Rust-Belt bought it.

BTW, links are great and can contain useful info but books are always a better "source".

So the links below are just a stepping-stone... not a "source".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

Did not comment on whether the number was good, bad or indifferent, just that median household income was greater than the number you provided, so I'm not sure what I should feel bad about.

BTW books can be linked from a retailer like Amazon. As for being "always better", I'm glad you're not my physician.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...