Dont forget science-denying.

i said no such thing. when you reduce the available population of people that can be on welfare then its easy to lower the % of people on it.
sec (c)lintons policies resulted in mass incarceration, targeted on groups associated with gang violence. these groups were quite possibly on some form of state assistance such as welfare. placing them in prison would take them off that particular state assistance.

you can read about it here, article is timeframe apporpriate as well (1999)
https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/poverty_prejudice/soc_sec/hview.htm

"The United States witnesses a significant growth in the size of its urban underclass each year. A number of sources explain that the percentage of the population persistently poor is large and rapidly increasing, that more and more teenage males are joining gangs, and that the need for welfare is exploding in cities (Jandowski 275)."
"This essay will strictly focus on jobless males and their relationship in gangs and the world of crime in urban cities, and how the combination of joblessness and crime within our neighborhoods creates a poor society."

This post was edited by excellence on Jul 29 2016 10:41am

Couldn't even get past one response without doing what I described in my original post.

hope you didn't expect otherwise

Haha, good point!

How many times has Trump talked about criminal justice reform?

"law and order candidate"

aka more authority, less rights, more brutality toward brown people and trump haters

Law and order directly means authoritarian. I see Gary Johnson splitting the freedom loving white male conservative vote right in half.

Look what Perot did and he wasn't nearly as cool as Johnson, nor was libertarianism even as big then, and HW Bush was 10x the candidate Trump is, plus incumbent.

This is going to be a bloodbath.

This post was edited by Skinned on Jul 29 2016 10:48am

Haha, it's all good. I appreciate the levity, some users around here take jsp way too serious, troll on my friend

I'm not as big of a PolitiFact fan as I used to be since they have shown pretty glaring biases, but even PolitiFact said Hillary Clinton told a pants on fire lie when she recently said: "Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people.""

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/01/hillary-clinton/hillary-clintons-wrong-claim-fbi-director-comey-ca/

PolitiFact is owned and operated by the Tampa Bay Times, a paper that has endorsed Hillary Clinton. In my experience, PolitiFact tends to go easier on Democrats and harder on Republicans with their ratings. But this particular rating shouldn't be surprising to anyone. HRC escaped a criminal indictment, but she has been extremely dishonest with the American people about her use of a private email server while Secretary of State.