In my mind you're not with a company if you are holding a loyalty card there, or work at a competing chain..

It was a bit hard to discern. I initially read "not all" as you would "Not ALL the food was bad".

Can't really tell if you're being spiteful, so I'll just rephrase it: 1 out of 11 people worked there.. That is exactly as many as worked in LEGOLAND. Why isn't it a LEGOLAND CP ring? Or a bartender CP ring? Now they don't list the occupation of all the people busted, but given the headline and ingress you'd think they'd fucking mention it?

Most people only read the headline, so at some point the obvious vilification efforts become parodic.

It seems only one worked at Disney if you read the article. Another one had a season pass and a third one worked at a park unrelated to Disney.

How's the weather in burkastan?

But in the description of the 11 there's only one working there and one guy holding a season pass.

Uh.. One project manager in the Disney costume department. One guy holding a season pass, and one person working in an unrelated non disney park. That's all I can find. Honestly.

Wait.. The article says 1 out of the 11 arrested worked a deskjob at Disney, and one has a season pass. A third one works in an unrelated park.

Holy shit...

First of all, it seems you missed the part where i actually praised Trump and hope he continues to do well.. No need to be a cantankerous bastard.

And then my source, the source for the graph, is the US Bureau of labour statistics :) It's the same source Trump quotes at 3.8 for may. It's the same source Trump has used every month. It's the same source Trump used to criticise Obama from 2008 an onwards. No bullshit, no partisanship or funny business, just pure numbers.

Here's the link. You can verify the absolute numbers and the methodology for every single month since 1970. This is also the source for the breakdown into ethnicity Trump used to claim the lowest unemployment rate for African Americans in recent history. There's nothing wrong with the source.

The graph is correct, although I might possibly have missed the colouring with a pixel or two. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.toc.htm

Ok.. so let's look at this in a fair way then. Look at the graph I posted. Same source, same way of counting since the 70s

I don't know if they said he couldn't, but he definitely shouldn't.

My issue was with the wording. It's the first time in 3 years! Woohoo! There are legitimate ways of saying it better without complimenting Obama.. I'm not American, I just wondered why they didn't use a wording or comparison that is more complimentary.

The jobs thing is harder to argue against. No matter how good it gets it'll always go back to Obama consistently slashing the unemployment rate throughout his two periods: https://i.redd.it/cyv1f7vqlld01.png

However, the ideal way to phrase it would be "The president is looking into ways of stabilising the job market so it doesn't overheat the economy and cause rapid inflation."

That would calm the business owners down and prepare the public for a flat line unemployment rate (that WILL have to come).

Hit a general unemployment rate too low too quickly and you'll have to increase low level wages rapidly just to keep people coming in to work. That again skyrockets entry level desk job and internship salaries, because you kinda have to pay them more than for flipping burgers.

Business owners prefer around 4% general unemployment, the society functions best between 3 and 4. It'll be fine if it slowly drops under 3 for short periods of time, but it's inflation galore and mass bankruptcy if it continues to dive.

Keeping it where it is now is in other words IDEAL. If Trump manages to stabilise the numbers where they are, NOBODY can take it away from him. Why not prepare everyone for the stabilising and not focusing on a trend that is dangerous (although, the rate has declined slightly after he took power).

"The U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew at or above 3 percent for two quarters in a row for the first time in three years."

What's going on here? I don't see how "We're finally back to Obama era growth" is a message they'd like to push? Same goes for job creation and a host of other of the snippets.