If what you are rhetorically asking is how people can be seeking unity, while starting or joining a political party, I can answer that.

While it is true that the current day Republican Party bases the bulk of its activities around declaring half of all Americans to be inherently defective and/or purposefully destructive of American values, it is not true that the entire concept of forming political parties in general, is based on that approach.

The goal of "normal" political parties, is supposed to be to advocate for the particular approach to solving problems that their supporters believe are best for everyone, and the hope for achieving unity, is based on trying to persuade those who disagree, to see the logic of your view. Not simply to form up large groups, and try to frighten or abuse everyone else into going along with you.

Those kinds of parties are formed as a sort of organizational tool, rather than as an army of antagonists.

You are quite correct, that the Modern Republican party, consciously decided about forty years ago now, to discard, rather than to try to answer the concerns of anyone who disagrees with their approach to everything. That party has been directly opposed to unifying the nation, ever since Nixon resigned, although an occasional single leader within their group, did try to follow the older traditions. George Bush Senior was one such, as was John Mccain. So far as I have seen, there is no one left in a high position there now, who wants unity through any means other than what would most accurately be called "Democratic Dictatorship."

The Democrats act like we can take care of everyone and everything. They don't understand that there is a breaking point. We aren't all created equal. Some people are meant to lead. Trump is doing a great job. Obama was just a baby kisser. Great speeches but couldn't do anything real to help the issues facing our country. Anybody can through more money at a problem. It takes a leader to solve a problem.

right. avoiding a depression is 'nothing real' ...lol

not compared to giving people a tax cut.

Tax cuts are adding jobs.

The depression could have been avoided if credit hadn't been so easy to get. People stop spending when the credit cards are maxed.

thats interesting. I thought 'throwing money' at things didnt solve problems though

adding jobs would be easy if people wouldnt be so greedy, but IFS are easy to come up with, solutions on a national scale, not so much.

Tax cuts isn't throwing money at anything. It's staying with the people who earn it. They are expanding business,etc. Hiring signs everywhere. More people working paying more taxes. Productivity.

more people than what?

-form BLS, past ten years in october

10/08 66 percent
10/09 65.7 percent
10/10 64.4 percent
10/11 64.1 percent
10/12 63.8 percent
10/13 62.8 percent
10/14 62.9 percent
10/15 62.5 percent
10/16 62.8 percent
10/17 62.7 percent
09/18 62.7 percent




so for those of you reading this for ish and giggles, I am an Obama supporter and I obviously didnt just look for a source to make him look good or others look bad. But when people make the claim that 'more people are working',, I like data to back it up.


but comparatively, under eight years of the prior potus participation dropped (economically, each president begins their first fiscal year in october of the year AFTER eleection) ... particpation dropped three points from 65.7 to 62.7, an average of less than half a percent a year

in Trumps first fiscal year, participation HAS NOT CHANGED.

Our unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since before I was born.
Under Obama jobs were through temp services with no benefits, service work with no benefits etc.

Just this week my company has paid $100 for me a pair of shoes and bought my lunch yesterday. I ate left overs for dinner. Good jobs is what makes the difference. People need to be able to support their families from their job, have health insurance from their job, time off for holidays and vacations with pay, free health screenings, life insurance, paid sick days, and retirement plans.

obama manipulated job numbers. Revisions weeks later happened with not much said about it. Fox business, and CNBC reported that. The scorekeepers were dems. Wave your job numbers all you want, the government reports take a back seat to private reports I read in the past.

so they have in all new 'scorekeepers' since 2017? haaaa, funny.

if the scores can be referenced now, they were to be referenced then, nothing has changed.

I wonder how my neighbor would know my budget better than I would, or how non government 'private' sources would have more accurate numbers of 'government' progress than government would.

there are two measures, unemployment and job participation.

people love to use these numbers if they reflect their candidate positively and also deny the numbers can be used if they reflect someone else's candidate positively.

its a really silly argument that continues to be used.

But here is the thing, even if a source is disputable, the changes in the number would still be based in the same consistent standard, so improvement or decline would not be disputable.

and this is also why LINKS are helpful. if a person has the balls to provide WHERE they got their data, then others can use that same data, based on credibility claims, to make a consistent and apples to apples comparison.

but when people only throw out what they allegedly 'heard' or 'read' somewhere, there is absolutely no way to verify credibility OR source.

Under Obama people were running out of unemployment without finding a job. They fell off the unemployed list but still struggled. Some gave up on looking for work.

okay. so when we cite unemployment numbers under Trump, people are NOT running out of employment without finding a job and falling off the unemployed list?

same standard is the same standard is the same standard

whatever that standard was is true for both administrations, meaning the numbers are still consistent to compare with each other.

and which is why I included the PARTICIPATION rate, instead of the unemployment rate, because I figured people would deflect with that type of reasoning.

I think trumps numbers would be higher if we knew the real number. I know in my area a ton of places are hiring that weren't hiring before. I could have worked today but didn't volunteer. Good jobs are important. Temp services were also driving down wages (benifits). Hopefully this economy will force other companies to provide better benefits and wages. People need a living wage. I think a minimum wage increase is needed. I understand working at McDonald's isn't skilled labor but it's still work. The employees there shouldn't have to work an hour just to buy a value meal for lunch.

'real numbers' whatever they are, may make EVERYONE's numbers higher, if applied consistently.

under every administration, some towns or communities may see more employment while others see less, which is probably why they take the NATIONAL numbers overall as a measure.

It would be lovely if companies provided better benefits and wages, but if it cuts down on their 'profits' its highly unlikely it will happen. People do need a living wage and a full weeks work should be worth enough to live in a decent and safe place and be able to meet one's needs. That is something I absolutely agree with.

'real numbers' whatever they are, may make EVERYONE's numbers higher, if applied consistently.

under every administration, some towns or communities may see more employment while others see less, which is probably why they take the NATIONAL numbers overall as a measure.

It would be lovely if companies provided better benefits and wages, but if it cuts down on their 'profits' its highly unlikely it will happen. People do need a living wage and a full weeks work should be worth enough to live in a decent and safe place and be able to meet one's needs. That is something I absolutely agree with.

A living wage varies by area. Minneapolis, MN is $11.93/hour. Most places the minimum they can hire someone for is a little over that.

http://livingwage.mit.edu/?fbclid=IwAR3H6cQDpoZX5oqMdj8l5gNN-NxFDY7SQkhQAsB4ZRMg7SCLJKNUlfZ6bhY

People do need a living wage and a full weeks work should be worth enough to live in a decent and safe place and be able to meet one's needs. That is something I absolutely agree with.

___________________________________________________________________

Yeah, well its not.. and never has been... in any country.

that's why people work to succeed in life.

yes, and no country has no crime either, thats why justice systems exist to curb and deal with the numbers and keep them down.

the country can 'work' to do better for their citizens welfare(as used in the constitution, not in stereotypes and insults)

I respect your opinion but....
I'm not looking for agreement or argument, just stating a basic fact of how the world is according to how I see it and the political party system no longer provides unity (did it ever?).

For any society to flourish, it requires unity of all participants in one way or another. Political parties are 'isolation' plain and simple.
At its best, there are 4 parties... Democratic, Republican, Other and None.

I fall into the 'None' party but this isolates me as well. This is because the majority of my fellow citizens are strongly affiliated with one of the other parties. This is isolation.

Political parties, no matter which, promotes some type of isolation in some way. Its no wonder our unity is broken.
The world suffers from the same broken unity according to the human species itself.

Humans, can't seem to unite about much at all.
On the national scale, it concerns our unity as a nation and on a global scale it concerns our unity as a species.

You can give observations and reasons but the bottom line is chaos. A deficiency of unity.
You can site any specifics you might want but it all reduces down to the common denominator of 'we lack unity'.

I think it is an imperative for human beings to argue about anything whenever possible. That arguing causes the chaos we actively witness daily. The only time we depart from arguing is when threatened and survival REQUIRES our unity.

War, used to give us reason for unity but even war has been supplanted by our need to argue. Look at our recent wars, so many conflicts on the home front. WW2, we united as a nation against the foe. Did we unite against the foe as a nation with any of our current/recent wars?
As a 'people', we have lost our ability to unite against a common foe.
The 9/11 attack united us for a short time but it was a very short time.

How can anyone claim they want Unity when they subscribe to the Isolation of political parties?
This was more of a consideration than a question. I know why we no longer have national unity. Do YOU?