But that's exactly what you did. Why did you do it? How come you jumped to a non-sequitur about Quebec's temperature when it was pointed out to you that Texas' unemployment rate is also above the national average?
California’s economic situation!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
But that's exactly what you did. Why did you do it? How come you jumped to a non-sequitur about Quebec's temperature when it was pointed out to you that Texas' unemployment rate is also above the national average?
Superfreak
Verified User
Try to find the irony.
No irony here, just you jumping to a non-sequitur when your argument about CA in the context of its unemployment rate was undercut by the fact that Texas also has a higher unemployment rate than the rest of the country. I want to know why you did what you did?
Superfreak
Verified User
Superfreak
Verified User
Superfreak
Verified User
LMAO
Callinectes
Proud MAGA Semi-Facist
Once again, the government has to put their big boy pants on and deal with reality. When the same thing happened here(although I don't know if anyone was "lying", I do know the economy was in the crapper)the governor said "strap in folks, it's gonna be a rough ride for everybody for a while", and he took matters in hand and 3 years later, we're okay. Folks been lying to people in California for a LOOOOOOONG time, evidently. At some point you have to start wondering if they're being taken advantage of, or if the government is too stupid to be entrusted with resposibility
Why indeed, as long as they violated a law, or an actionable violation of the deal between the investments funds and the government. Investments are a crap shoot anyway
Superfreak
Verified User
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeau...states_ranked_by_cost_of_living_adjusted_gdp/
The above shows GDP per capita adjusted for cost of living.
The above shows GDP per capita adjusted for cost of living.
Nothing I wrote is a non-sequitur. We are talking about CA's unemployment rate and economy within the same context.
The non-sequitur was you bringing up Quebec's weather.
No non-sequiturs there. It's not a non-sequitur to point out that of the 12 years when Dems had full control, 5 of those 12 years are 2013-present, which coincides with California's great growth.
It doesn't seem like you really get language.
The reality is that Investment Funds lied about their product in order to attract pension fund business. Because of that, you want to punish the pensioners and not the Investment Funds. Shows where your allegiance is.
When the pension funds were investing in what the Investment Funds were peddling in the 2000's, the economy was not in recession. The economy cratered because those markets in which pension funds were investing collapsed. They collapsed because they were bullshit to begin with, and the Investment Funds knew that. They chose to lie about the risk of the products to which they were luring pension funds. They were acting in bad faith. You seem to think that's all fine. That's where we diverge.
But it wasn't a rough ride for everybody. Investment Funds emerged unscathed and fully re-capitalized after the recession hit, whereas pension funds did not recoup what they lost. So no, not everyone was in the same boat. What I don't understand is why you think pensioners should have to sacrifice because their managers were deceived by Investment Funds acting in bad faith. Shouldn't you be taking punitive action against the Investment Funds, since they're the ones who lured the pension funds to their product using fake ratings and concealed risk?
You are blaming victims for being deceived by bad faith actors.
I bet you think women are to blame for being raped, too.
Superfreak
Verified User
Wrong again moron. The non-sequitur was when she and I were talking about who controlled the two houses and you in turn pointed out that you were able to discern that some of the years in the range were indeed in the range and that the economy was supposedly better with super majorities. Which had NOTHING to do with WHO CONTROLLED THE CA Senate and House. NOTHING. which is a non-sequitur
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
Superfreak
Verified User
Yes, it is. When discussing WHO controlled the CA Senate and House under Arnold. The above is indeed a non-sequitur you moron.
Perhaps you shouldn't use words if you don't comprehend their meaning?
non se·qui·tur
ˌnän ˈsekwədər/Submit
noun
a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
cawacko
Well-known member
Clown show. As a liberal he's internalized California's success as liberal success and as such can't acknowledge the basic realities and issues of our state. Extreme partisanship is bad for the brain
Superfreak
Verified User
and again... when I stated that CA was lagging because its unemployment rate is higher than the US average and you stated 'no its not, because it had a higher unemployment rate 8 years ago and is doing much better now' ... that too is a non-sequitur. Your statement is not logical. It also completely fails to address the point I made.
Your 'but TX is higher than average too' was yet ANOTHER non-sequitur. For it too had NOTHING to do with my point.
Your 'but TX is higher than average too' was yet ANOTHER non-sequitur. For it too had NOTHING to do with my point.
Superfreak
Verified User
It is truly ironic his pretending that I was the one using non-sequiturs, when the only one I used was to done to highlight his non stop use of them.
So the government should have known better than to trust what Wall Street Investment Funds were telling them?
Well if you can't trust Wall Street, who can you trust?