Couldn't find it, but then how the hell is it a round number?
Because they just indexed it so it wont stop being a round number until next year.
You are not making incremental changes for the better. You are cementing a status-quo.
Every good change ever has come from incrementalism. Abolition, suffrage, civil rights, progressive taxation, social security, medicare, medicaid, S-CHIP. Every one of these was watered down in the first draft and improved later on. And currently we are in the middle of Obamacare which was watered down at first but which can be improved right now. And this clinton tax credit is an example of "improved later on". You just keep making additions and fixes and eventually you fix the problem.
Hell Bernie Sanders was calling for a "revolution" and he was still talking about incremental changes.
So was that Marx guy, since the whole post-capitalist society was something he talked about happening over generations as technology advanced and forced certain things which were then a fact of life to be questioned, opened up new options, and so forth.
It is amusing watching the ongoing wreckage that is the Trumptrain derailing mid-derail after crashing into that damned reality thing Trump keeps trying to avoid, and which maybe just maybe the Republican leadership will be forced to come to terms with after the smoke clears. It is remarkable to look back a month ago and chuckle at the things which we thought "well that's it, he's done then" over.
Does kinda distract from the opportunity which Clinton presents, cynical as one may be after listening to that big booming voice talking about hope and such, he wasn't remotely in the same ballpark of experience as she is, taking office after 4 years in senate. She's had 4 years as secretary of state, 8 as a senator, and 8 more as a first lady who actually had a pretty significant role in her husbands presidency with her leading his push for health care reform. Though it failed (remember Hillarycare?) she was smart enough to note that her own political inexperience was no doubt a factor in it getting voted down.
Though it isn't brought up as much, besides being active in politics since the 60's, she's also been a champion of children and women's rights since the same period, including her time as a lawyer, which I guess we can go ahead and hold against her.
If the worst stuff people say about her being in the pocket of wall street, corporations, and whatever is true... we'd still be getting someone with experience and relationships built up with the people she'd be working with and a long history fighting to improve the rights and standing of children and women, the poverty measure brought up above isn't a new thing for her really.
I didn't google it though, I
banged it because duckduckgo is the shizzy.
Sometimes you just want to throw a Communist revolution and install a proper democracy instead of this shitpile that we have.
And Trump is just normal Trump. A vile shit. How does any of this surprise you, Sergarr? If Trump supported a second Holocaust, I don't think I'd be that surprised. He has an absolutely fucked up moral system.
Well, like I said above, Marx was talking about cultural revolutions over long time periods, not rising up with pitchforks and hoping it works out.
As for the dressing room thing, grab that crayon out of the box labeled "unsurprised" and get to work on me.
The republicans coming back to him though, damn, I wouldn't normally say it looked like battered spouse syndrome, but that's one of the signature abuser tricks. "Fine, I'm better off without you anyways!" *pause* *runs to catch him* screw it, let's go down the list.
- Fears for their life (or existence as a party) for more than a month ✔
- Performance at work and day to day life is affected ✔
- Manipulated through threats of violence, unwanted sex, isolation, degradation, and more ✔
- Dislike their bodies and exhibit somatic health issues ✔
- Sexual intimacy issues ✔
Well fuck, I guess it's time for an intervention?