Last election cycle the RNC had to return more donations than any political party ever because they swindled their donors into making multiple, repeating donations that automatically doubled…swindling their own out of millions.
This election cycle that amount they’ve had to return quadrupled, because they continued to use underhanded swindling to get money…this time using Facebook adds to get contacts then texting old people telling them to text Trump to tell him they love him (and in tiny font tell them they make a repeating $25 donation by texting).

Only $28 million left out of $180 they had…and they used much of that money horrifically farming donations….spent $10 for every $1 back! ROTFLMFAHS!!! Some of that $28 million will have to be returned too.
Almost every donator that was swindled is another lost vote for Republicans, most people don’t like being swindled. Trusting Rick Scott with your money is second in stupidity only to trusting Trump with your money! 😂

Also, Republicans are scrambling to remove any references to abortion from their websites, knowing their anti choice positions will sink them. 😂

Guess there is no hope for Trump or the RNC….and happy day they both absolutely hate each other now.

ROEVEMBER IS COMING!

Remember, Trump doesn’t like people like you, he absolutely HATES you. He would never allow you in his club if you’re worth under $25 million, he would certainly never stoop to speak to you or address your concerns. You aren’t his friend, you’re a fool ready to be separated from your money and nothing more to Trump.

Vacuum power is nothing to sneeze at. I've imploded a 55 gallon drum with a shop vac (loud). That glass plate at let's say 1ft x 2 ft under -25 psi has 7200 pounds of pressure on it. That's more than a car.

@renatojj I agree with you! Coerced into transactions they dont want is indeed the only definition important. I just dont agree free market policies are about making transactions as voluntary as possible. Free market policies only do that in some cases, namely where you have optimal competition. In most markets that is not the case. That is what I mean with right.

I live in Europe. Spain currently has an official unemployment of 25%, 50% for those under 25. Do you think in that situation the unemployed have a choice? You will and do get coercion. People dont want to work for wages that are so low they cannot afford their homes and barely have enough to eat. But the other option is starvation, so they have to. I know the free market people argue that that is still a choice. It is not. If it where up to companies, they would pay even less. Thats why you need for instance minimum wages. If companies would be allowed to go below that minimum all kinds of nastyness would happen. Not for the companies, but for the country, which is bad also for the companies in the end.

Free markets rules are set to minimize government intervention. In some cases that also leads to maximum choices, which you call economic freedom. The issue here is that if all the choices are bad, you are still better off with more rules as lots of bad choices is another form of coercion. The entire idea is to maximize economic freedom while making sure there are good choices. I am not advocating government take full control, which would be the other side of the spectrum. I am advocating a middle road. Use free markets when you can, regulate when you need to.

True, 10 years ago saw a job posting of a well known Swedish telecom that wanted people under 25 with a masters in computer engineering and at least five to ten years of experience in the industry.
To this date i still wonder if they ever managed to find one with those qualifications.
>> ^marinara:

what there is, is a lot of business owners who want 30 years of experience for the low low price of $6.50 per hour. And they want it with mandantory overtime and unpaid overtime.

>> ^quantumushroom:

The minimum voting age should be raised to 25 for everyone except US military.

People under 25 vote?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There is a certain wisdom in people being the victims of their own bad choices, though at times, it is an oversimplification of a much larger set of problems.


I am a big proponent of responsibility and accountability for individual actions so I can agree to a point. However, I can't fully agree. We all make mistakes. And beyond those mistakes, sometimes things just go wrong due to freak circumstances and/or things completely unexpected. That isn't even counting the background that we come from. One of my friends is extremely smart and went to a prestigious college. Her parents were upper middle class, but wouldn't pay for any college. Since she was under 25, she couldn't get financial aid (college rules state that she is a dependent of her parents whether they are paying or not.) She ended up with over $100,000 in loans by the time she graduated. Having that large loan forced her hand in deciding her career and what she will do in life for a while. Now albeit this is only a small (although not to her) specific example, this difference in background exists across the board to widely varying ranges. All of that combined makes me want to give people the benefit of the doubt and many second chances. How has this worked out? Well quite frankly, I've been ripped off and taken advantage by people in the past. I'm sure it will happen again, but I've learned to judge people's character quite well now due to my experiences and am more mindful of what type and degree of the help I give. Looking back, I wouldn't have done anything different.

Here's a wonderful sift on success and failure. I don't know if you have watched it yet. I didn't see a vote by you for it, so maybe you haven't.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Fascinating-talk-on-success-failure-and-careers


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
There are real problems of poverty and hardship that you can do something about...like right now...this very moment. You don't need an act of congress to do so.


I agree on a personal level and do some things that address those issues, but I am unconvinced of the argument that private charity, etc can take care of a sufficient amount of the ills. Please understand I am not implying that you are making that argument, but it is that belief that doesn't allow me to say that the government shouldn't be involved at a medium or higher level.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Did you hear that, Obama? Stop pussyfooting about the public option. Just push it through via reconciliation. The Republicans don't want to help; they want just want to kill it outright. You campaigned with the slogan "Change." Well now is your chance.

Yeah good plan. Push through a bill that's a steaming pile of shit and isn't the best for the American people. And before someone says "but what's your idea for a bill..." I've posted it several times. Take CHA, modify to fit US, dance a few songs. Be happy. But no you think you need to have a 1200sec. bill that oozes BS all over it instead of something that can do all the work and be under 25 sections in plain English.

Let me repeat myself for the sake of repeating, you can want something that's in the best interests of all your citizens. But you'd better do it properly the first time. Luckily the US has other nations, and other countries(hint hint) who are built on a similar architecture(hint Canada hint) of power sharing, with federal power. If it's so unwieldly that the average citizen can't understand it, than the bill is absolutely useless.

That's what you have now, that's what's wrong. That's why it shouldn't pass. That's why it should be simple, easy to understand, and be left to each individual state.

>> ^Enzoblue:
>> ^Bidouleroux:
This is pretty much exactly like religion vs. atheism, with religion being of course smoking.

Anti-smoking is by far the more religious. Smoking is blamed for a host of sundry afflictions with scientific support that no one has the courage to challenge. People want it to be evil and that's what they get. No serious scientist would do any unbiased research, because if he found anything remotely pro-smoking the political fallout would ruin his career overnight.
Our surgeon general states that 70% of lung cancer victims got it from smoking, but lung cancer continues to rise with nary a blip - even though smokers per capita have fallen under 25% and have been there for a decade. If you want me to support this claim with data, sorry I can't. Neither the CDC or the ALA, or any other site I could find, will release any data cross referencing lung cancer victims and smokers. You can easily find how much carcinogens a black single mother of 2 will inhale in a 12x12 room with one smoker, but a table lookup of smokers v lung cancer victims will get you a 404 error. Try it.
That's religion. People needing an evil, ignoring the facts, suppressing the research of facts, all holding hands and attacking with fervor.
P.S.
My lungs get a clean bill of health every year, even though I've been smoking for over 20 years, simply because I've never tell the doctors I smoke. Ask your smoking friends to try that, it'll give them a chuckle.


You obviously didn't look very hard for data then. With almost zero effort I just came accross this in a high-profile peer-reviewed medical journal. There are hundreds of studies comparing mortality rates between smokers and non-smokers with data going back 100 years. I just want to point out the data in that study was from 1951-2001. In "survival rates from age 35" the difference in survival rates between smokers and non-smokers increases to about 20% difference by age 70. That is, you are looking at about 20% of all non-smokers being dead and 40% of all smokers dead. You can always look at the graphs for much more information than I can type here, but it's all very damning.

"But cancer continues to rise!" I hear in a myriad of different "X does or doesn't cause cancer" topics. What you mean to say is cancer diagnoses have continued to rise. 50 years ago we knew a fraction of what we know now about cancer. This is just one example of why statistics is a profession. There's so much to it I can't begin to describe it here.

>> ^Bidouleroux:
This is pretty much exactly like religion vs. atheism, with religion being of course smoking.


Anti-smoking is by far the more religious. Smoking is blamed for a host of sundry afflictions with scientific support that no one has the courage to challenge. People want it to be evil and that's what they get. No serious scientist would do any unbiased research, because if he found anything remotely pro-smoking the political fallout would ruin his career overnight.

Our surgeon general states that 70% of lung cancer victims got it from smoking, but lung cancer continues to rise with nary a blip - even though smokers per capita have fallen under 25% and have been there for a decade. If you want me to support this claim with data, sorry I can't. Neither the CDC or the ALA, or any other site I could find, will release any data cross referencing lung cancer victims and smokers. You can easily find how much carcinogens a black single mother of 2 will inhale in a 12x12 room with one smoker, but a table lookup of smokers v lung cancer victims will get you a 404 error. Try it.

That's religion. People needing an evil, ignoring the facts, suppressing the research of facts, all holding hands and attacking with fervor.

P.S.
My lungs get a clean bill of health every year, even though I've been smoking for over 20 years, simply because I've never tell the doctors I smoke. Ask your smoking friends to try that, it'll give them a chuckle.

Like the bolsheviks, you libs live in a parallel universe, opposite reality.

It's somewhat forgivable if you're under 25 with a skull full of mush: you've been lied to your whole lives and robbed of an education in American history and moral values of any sort.

You just make yourselves miserable, ending up pessimistic and hating your own country.

That's no way to live. What will you do when Bush is out of office? Who will you complain about then?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody's_Rockin'

Everybody's Rockin' is a 1983 album by Neil Young. The album was recorded with the Shocking Pinks (a band made up just for the occasion), and features a selection of rockabilly songs (both covers and original material.) Running less than a half of an hour, the music is unlike anything else in Young's career. However, Everybody's Rockin' is typical of his 1980s period in that it bears little (or no) resemblance to the album released before it (Trans (1982), a synth-heavy, electro-rock album), nor the one released after it (Old Ways (1985), which is pure country.)

Everybody's Rockin' is Neil Young's shortest album, clocking in at under 25 minutes. In a 1995 interview with MOJO, Young said that the album was supposed to have included the songs Get Gone and Don't Take Your Love Away From Me (which later appeared on Lucky Thirteen), but that Geffen, his record company, cancelled the recording sessions. [1]

The following year, Geffen sued Young for making "uncharacteristic, uncommercial records", because of this record and its predecessor. In the Mojo interview Young says "R.E.M. were going to go with Geffen, then they heard I was being sued and everything, they just dropped all contact with Geffen and signed with Warner Bros instead. Geffen actually lost R.E.M. simply for suing me over Everybody's Rockin'!"

Young wrote the song "Wonderin'" long before the sessions for Everybody's Rockin'. It dates from at least the After the Goldrush era, and was part of his setlist at solo acoustic shows in 1970.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

JD: "why didn't they go back with well dress over 25 yr olds and see what they say."

JD, I think the point was - that lots of sloppily dressed white people under 25 were being let in -just not them. This is pretty blatant racism.