djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/jackdwagner/status/897598398492278785

the network for the GOP.

That is so farcical, I wouldn't be surprised if a rogue Fox producer did that on purpose.

smackeddog wrote:Jesus, just when you think trump has hit rock bottom, he opens his mouth again. what an absolute prick.

+1000
I'm thinking he'll be impeached by year three. The reason I say that is that republicans will have no use for him after the midterm elections.

djsunyc wrote:

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/jackdwagner/status/897598398492278785

the network for the GOP.

You can actually see the moment when he realizes what stories are coming next and you can see his sense of shame kick in

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:I think Koreans and Jews have the right to be free of fear same as Americans. So my choice is to get read of the thread preemptively.

One problem is the delusion that the US is some modern version of superman and we can just go around the world preemptively bombing countries who we don't want to become a threat. We are not as powerful as most Americans want to believe we are and other countries are stronger than we want to admit they are. Vietnam should've have proven that Americans don't have much of an appetite for ideological wars nor do we trust our government to send us to war for legit reasons. Remember we when attacked Iraq because of their WMDs then a few weeks later Bush starting talking about the mission was to liberate the citizens of Iraq?

There are also a bunch of other countries ruled by evil dictators. What's our justification for cherry picking the citizens who have a right to be free but we neglect others? The live free argument if very arbitrary.

That last part is exactly right. The US cherry picking which countries to bully under the guise of "liberating their citizens" is why such a large population across the world hates the US. Briggs thinks it's ok for him and Trump to make threats about wiping out Korea in casual conversation. But if someone is Iran uses the same rhetoric the the same Briggs concludes it's fundamental to their core ideology. This is as clear cut an example of right wing hypocrisy as you'll get.

Naive and wrong. NK has constantly lied to the US for 50 years while they extend their weapons programs. We literally have to sit on their doorsteps with 30k troops and nuclear bombs. You think if they had no bad intentions--we would have troops there? This is a problem and it will have to be dealt with--you can be blind to it--BUT Iran and NK are serious serious issues. And akrud is right--we dont want same thing in Venezuela. Do I personally want to bomb anyone--no. But I also would have a very strong red line. I dont think any siting President will allow Iran and NK to have an arsenal that could wipe us out. They wouldnt be doing their main job. Listen each era in the history of the world has an end. Unfortunately we may be sitting on one. Nuclear proliferation is BY FAR the most important subject in the world today.

Naive and wrong because you said so? Iran sand NK are threats because you can't operate in a world where you can't point to clear and present danger to push your agenda for unilateral violence against other countries. You and Arkrud are completely full of ****. Unlike you though he isn't motivated by the need to bully countries, he just drank a whole bottle of cold was propaganda as a man child and never recovered.

US was and is policing the world. If you think otherwise you are naive.
We are the main guaranty of stability because we are feared. And fear is the only thing most of the rulers understand and respect.
And time after time we have to prove that we will use the military force when we think it is necessary or we are asked by our friends.
And we do just that over and over again and will continue doing so.
Most of the human race its not went far away from stone age, slavery, of feudal eras.
And many cultures are trending backward. You have to be blind to no see it.
With land, natural and human resources became plentiful the large swats of land will became a Mad-max style wastelands.
And many countries in Middle East, Central Asia , and Africa already are as such.
The world is changing and as we are moving forward many nations will end up in the dumpster of the history.
This how it always was and will always be.

This is why I no longer engage in conversation with you. You always confuse the issues to a point where it's no longer useful to discuss anything. I have no issues with the US being more powerful and acting as a PASSIVE deterrent to violence.

But the rest of the gobbledegook you posted where you said we act again and again when we think it's necessary or at the request of friends is the bull**** I have a problem with. You may subscribe to the world view that we need to be the biggest bully in the school yard in order for the world to have peace, but just looking at the amount of crap going on in the world suggests otherwise. Nobody died and appointed us the ultimate decision maker on what an independent country can or can't do. But you guys are so fully invested in that idea that you can't tell the difference between peacekeeping and bullying. For the record Iran has not been at war for over a century but you need to make it sound like they are about to destroy the world so you can justify violence against them. Power is like porn for you.

What Are you talking about?
Iran fight the bloodiest war in Middle East with Iraq in 80th..
Iran's losses were estimated to be 300,000 soldiers, while Iraq's losses were estimated to be 150,000
They are constantly involved in all conflicts using proxy as Hezbollah, Palestinians, Haiti rebels in Yemen.
They are fighting with Sunni, Kurd's, and Tadzhik insurgency.
They are engaged in major power struggle for the control of Middle East with Saudis, Turks, and Egypt.
And of course they stated loud and clear that they want to wipe out Israel from the map.
Not only you are ignorant but you also have no idea about any subject you are trying to make a point on.

I wrote that badly. Iran has not declared war on anyone in a century. That's the imaginary threat that was being discussed. The point I was making is having the capability to defend itself if attacked is sufficient deterrent.

All this bull**** you guys post about the US needing to maintain world Peace through military action is just that. It's bull****.

GustavBahler wrote:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/feds-seek-visitor-records-website-linked-to-trump-protests_us_59935b66e4b0e789a9476e78?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

Feds Seek 1.3 Million Visitor Records From Website Linked To Trump Protests
The request is so broad it seems like the administration is trying to obtain “an enemies list,” one legal expert said.

This pretty much sums it up

In a blog post about the case, White wrote that the move by the Trump administration is particularly chilling because the administration has “expressed so much overt hostility to protesters, so relentlessly conflated all protesters with those who break the law, and so deliberately framed America as being at war with the administration’s domestic enemies

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

Welpee wrote:

arkrud wrote:I think Koreans and Jews have the right to be free of fear same as Americans. So my choice is to get read of the thread preemptively.

One problem is the delusion that the US is some modern version of superman and we can just go around the world preemptively bombing countries who we don't want to become a threat. We are not as powerful as most Americans want to believe we are and other countries are stronger than we want to admit they are. Vietnam should've have proven that Americans don't have much of an appetite for ideological wars nor do we trust our government to send us to war for legit reasons. Remember we when attacked Iraq because of their WMDs then a few weeks later Bush starting talking about the mission was to liberate the citizens of Iraq?

There are also a bunch of other countries ruled by evil dictators. What's our justification for cherry picking the citizens who have a right to be free but we neglect others? The live free argument if very arbitrary.

That last part is exactly right. The US cherry picking which countries to bully under the guise of "liberating their citizens" is why such a large population across the world hates the US. Briggs thinks it's ok for him and Trump to make threats about wiping out Korea in casual conversation. But if someone is Iran uses the same rhetoric the the same Briggs concludes it's fundamental to their core ideology. This is as clear cut an example of right wing hypocrisy as you'll get.

Naive and wrong. NK has constantly lied to the US for 50 years while they extend their weapons programs. We literally have to sit on their doorsteps with 30k troops and nuclear bombs. You think if they had no bad intentions--we would have troops there? This is a problem and it will have to be dealt with--you can be blind to it--BUT Iran and NK are serious serious issues. And akrud is right--we dont want same thing in Venezuela. Do I personally want to bomb anyone--no. But I also would have a very strong red line. I dont think any siting President will allow Iran and NK to have an arsenal that could wipe us out. They wouldnt be doing their main job. Listen each era in the history of the world has an end. Unfortunately we may be sitting on one. Nuclear proliferation is BY FAR the most important subject in the world today.

Naive and wrong because you said so? Iran sand NK are threats because you can't operate in a world where you can't point to clear and present danger to push your agenda for unilateral violence against other countries. You and Arkrud are completely full of ****. Unlike you though he isn't motivated by the need to bully countries, he just drank a whole bottle of cold was propaganda as a man child and never recovered.

US was and is policing the world. If you think otherwise you are naive.
We are the main guaranty of stability because we are feared. And fear is the only thing most of the rulers understand and respect.
And time after time we have to prove that we will use the military force when we think it is necessary or we are asked by our friends.
And we do just that over and over again and will continue doing so.
Most of the human race its not went far away from stone age, slavery, of feudal eras.
And many cultures are trending backward. You have to be blind to no see it.
With land, natural and human resources became plentiful the large swats of land will became a Mad-max style wastelands.
And many countries in Middle East, Central Asia , and Africa already are as such.
The world is changing and as we are moving forward many nations will end up in the dumpster of the history.
This how it always was and will always be.

This is why I no longer engage in conversation with you. You always confuse the issues to a point where it's no longer useful to discuss anything. I have no issues with the US being more powerful and acting as a PASSIVE deterrent to violence.

But the rest of the gobbledegook you posted where you said we act again and again when we think it's necessary or at the request of friends is the bull**** I have a problem with. You may subscribe to the world view that we need to be the biggest bully in the school yard in order for the world to have peace, but just looking at the amount of crap going on in the world suggests otherwise. Nobody died and appointed us the ultimate decision maker on what an independent country can or can't do. But you guys are so fully invested in that idea that you can't tell the difference between peacekeeping and bullying. For the record Iran has not been at war for over a century but you need to make it sound like they are about to destroy the world so you can justify violence against them. Power is like porn for you.

What Are you talking about?
Iran fight the bloodiest war in Middle East with Iraq in 80th..
Iran's losses were estimated to be 300,000 soldiers, while Iraq's losses were estimated to be 150,000
They are constantly involved in all conflicts using proxy as Hezbollah, Palestinians, Haiti rebels in Yemen.
They are fighting with Sunni, Kurd's, and Tadzhik insurgency.
They are engaged in major power struggle for the control of Middle East with Saudis, Turks, and Egypt.
And of course they stated loud and clear that they want to wipe out Israel from the map.
Not only you are ignorant but you also have no idea about any subject you are trying to make a point on.

I wrote that badly. Iran has not declared war on anyone in a century. That's the imaginary threat that was being discussed. The point I was making is having the capability to defend itself if attacked is sufficient deterrent.

All this bull**** you guys post about the US needing to maintain world Peace through military action is just that. It's bull****.

Declaring the war is honorable thing. Waging the war on many nations at the premise of religious and Persian nationalist supremacy is another story.
Persians want to get beck the clout of great power they were in the past. And they do not care about the cost.
We are the great power of the present and have to act accordingly.
If we want piece, progress, security, and stability we must maintain overwhelming power and show over and over again that we are not shy to use it.
Liberalism brings weakness and is a precursor to totalitarian nationalistic and xenophobic states over and over again.
How many times well educated people with good humanitarian intents need to bring the evil to the world before they stop doing same mistakes over and over again?
How many more millions of people have to die?

∆∆∆∆∆∆∆ - exactly what I meant by bull****.

What's obvious from reading it is you want to prevent Persians from getting any power and YOU don't care what cost. AND you think anything short of bullying other countries based on your paranoia is equal to "sign of weakness".

First place on the list is no surprise: the United States Navy. The U.S. Navy has the most ships by far of any navy worldwide. It also has the greatest diversity of missions and the largest area of responsibility.

No other navy has the global reach of the U.S. Navy, which regularly operates in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and the Horn of Africa. The U.S. Navy also forward deploys ships to Japan, Europe and the Persian Gulf.

The U.S. Navy has 288 battle force ships, of which typically a third are underway at any given time. The U.S. Navy has 10 aircraft carriers, nine amphibious assault ships, 22 cruisers, 62 destroyers, 17 frigates and 72 submarines. In addition to ships, the U.S. Navy has 3,700 aircraft, making it the second largest air force in the world. At 323,000 active and 109,000 personnel, it is also the largest navy in terms of manpower.

What makes the U.S. Navy stand out the most is its 10 aircraft carriers—more than the rest of the world put together. Not only are there more of them, they’re also much bigger: a single Nimitz-class aircraft carrier can carry twice as many planes (72) as the next largest foreign carrier. Unlike the air wings of other countries, which typically concentrate on fighters, a typical U.S. carrier air wing is a balanced package capable of air superiority, strike, reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief missions.

The U.S. Navy’s 31 amphibious ships make it the largest “gator” fleet in the world, capable of transporting and landing on hostile beaches. The nine amphibious assault ships of the Tarawa and Wasp classes can carry helicopters to ferry troops or act as miniature aircraft carriers, equipped with AV-8B Harrier attack jets and soon F-35B fighter-bombers.

The U.S. Navy has 54 nuclear attack submarines, a mix of the Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia classes. The U.S. Navy is also responsible for the United States’ strategic nuclear deterrent at sea, with 14 Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines equipped with a total of 336 Trident nuclear missiles. The USN also has four Ohio-class submarines stripped of nuclear missiles and modified to carry 154 Tomahawk land attack missiles.

The U.S. Navy has the additional roles of ballistic missile defense, space operations and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief. As of October 2013, 29 cruisers and destroyers were capable of intercepting ballistic missiles, with several forward deployed to Europe and Japan. It also monitors space in support of U.S. military forces, tracking the satellites of potential adversaries. Finally, the U.S. Navy’s existing aircraft carriers and amphibious vessels, plus the dedicated hospital ships USNS Mercy and USNS Comfort, constitute a disaster relief capability that has been deployed in recent years to Indonesia, Haiti, Japan and the Philippines.

If the U.S. were to suddenly disappear all of the hostile nations would be much more aggressive. As you can see Russia has been pushing to extend their influence by covert and overt means. Still none of this means that the U.S. needs to be an aggressor with regard to trouble maker nations.

Diplomacy needs to be given as much of a chance as possible before any military actions are taken. IMO that still has to be a last resort.

gunsnewing wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

gr33d wrote:

djsunyc wrote:why does everything always have to be about race?

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/892538640789901312

Affirmative action has put whites and asians at a disadvantage since its inception.

Some of the biggest schools have lower SAT requirements and application bonus points, just for being black or Hispanic. Eventually the equality lawsuits pile up and they'll force a rational debate.

it is impossible for whites to be at a disadvantage. b/c of the dominance of the race and the suppression of everyone non-white throughout most of civilization's history - it will take centuries to put folks on an equal level. that's why affirmative action and preference to non-whites (as well as females) must be in place to accelerate the process. it can't be looked in a bubble - we have to assess based on how we got to this point and how we can correct it as quick as possible.

At some point you have to decide if it's working and I think that's the point... Have we made progress and/or does the method need improvement/change? And are we making inroads at the expense of white and asian educations?

We're an evolving society, things change... People change. But it doesn't always have to be at the expense of our neighbors...

30 years ago women were home, raising kids and taking care of homes... Today, that's almost impossible. And looking at recent wage gap data, we've made great strides here.

i'm not sure what you mean by at the expense of asians. but "at the expense" of whites doesn't register with me. it will take decades/generations for it to even come close to "at the expense" of whites.

So you're not sure what it means that whites and asians have been displaced from certain schools by accepting lower scoring blacks and hispanics? How is this fair and why am I not surprised...

I don't know enough about affirmative action to speak in detail about this. I don't know how many students are affected or what typically happens to students if they're 'displaced,' and I don't know the level of disparity involved with the applicants.

I also don't know that campus life is strictly a matter test scoring and GPA. I think colleges admit students all the time for reasons other than test scores and high school GPAs. But that is neither here nor there.

There is a legitimate argument to be had about the effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action, but the root issue of why the program exists is general, broader disparity of opportunity. AA is a tiny subset of a much bigger issue. So my question what compels someone to take up AA as a cause as opposed to the root issue?

Is the argument that the conditions leading up to the college application pool & process is our now is equal and fair?

You don't know all the facts because but they've been locked and sealed by politicians and the media in the swamp vault

I'm listening with an open mind, lay out the facts and cite your sources.

BRIGGS wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:And whether DT is or is not a good President--Im sure most people are happy to shove it up the arse of many of these arrogant bastards at the very least.

This is what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you voted for, and/or justify the performance of the President out of spite - because you resent the perception that Democrats don't respect your intelligence, well then that's exactly why they're right not to.

Too bad--cry about it.

I'd suggest "President Trump: He's Incompetent But Makes Me Feel Better About Me" for his reelection slogan.

Its the crybaby mentality. I lost so now Im going to throw stones. Im sure Hillary wouldve been a fine President

i think what's been lost on you (and others) is that voting for trump was THE BIGGEST CRY BABY MOVE EVER.

Im sure there is a lot of people who would counter that having Hillary as President was not acceptable under almost any circumstance. From day 1 there was no building a government that could work together for common ground. Its like having two countries within one. Some of what trump says makes common sense. Ih he is leaning to far in a direction--then you find a common ground on negotiation. But from the Democratic side its been no before he took office. Thats unfortunate. I dont know one thing that he said was so far off base? Its mostly been about protectionism prosperity and safety.

Not like I agree with you on all counts but it is pointless to preach Judaism to Muslims... Wrong forum.
We should not remove the symbols of the past but erect the symbols of the past that were untold and forgotten because they were not feet with American exceptionalism and narratives that America never did anything wrong.
Time to make museums similar to Holocaust museums in Europe in former slave market buildings in the South, mark the places where black people were killed and erect the monuments for those who fight against slavery and segregation.
Just in front of General Lee statue.
Past cannot be removed by removing the monuments - it can only be brought back to the present.
Nation which forget its history has no future.

I don't feel threatened by Nazi/ skinhead. They are such a small part of society they don't matter. While this was unfortunate event-- more violence on a daily basis over drugs gangs et al that whole scene should've been a non event. First town should have done what it had to do to keep them out or to shut it down quickly. Secondly and I think where Trump Saturday comment come from-- those protestors came for violent scene(they came stocked with gear). There was culpability in their actions. If they don't protest-- no one gets hurt-- police get these arseholes out in 30 minutes. Why people giving kkk / nazi even one second of attention? Let cops do the job.

The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault. Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion. A discussion that would abolish the swamp. Ending divide and conquer and essentially putting them all out of work and drastically altering their lifestyles

gunsnewing wrote:The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault.

Just to be clear, are you denying the substance or veracity of this video?

Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion.

Okay what are the facts? Discuss.

GustavBahler wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

arkrud wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

djsunyc wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

Knickoftime wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:And whether DT is or is not a good President--Im sure most people are happy to shove it up the arse of many of these arrogant bastards at the very least.

This is what's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you voted for, and/or justify the performance of the President out of spite - because you resent the perception that Democrats don't respect your intelligence, well then that's exactly why they're right not to.

Too bad--cry about it.

I'd suggest "President Trump: He's Incompetent But Makes Me Feel Better About Me" for his reelection slogan.

Its the crybaby mentality. I lost so now Im going to throw stones. Im sure Hillary wouldve been a fine President

i think what's been lost on you (and others) is that voting for trump was THE BIGGEST CRY BABY MOVE EVER.

Im sure there is a lot of people who would counter that having Hillary as President was not acceptable under almost any circumstance. From day 1 there was no building a government that could work together for common ground. Its like having two countries within one. Some of what trump says makes common sense. Ih he is leaning to far in a direction--then you find a common ground on negotiation. But from the Democratic side its been no before he took office. Thats unfortunate. I dont know one thing that he said was so far off base? Its mostly been about protectionism prosperity and safety.

Not like I agree with you on all counts but it is pointless to preach Judaism to Muslims... Wrong forum.
We should not remove the symbols of the past but erect the symbols of the past that were untold and forgotten because they were not feet with American exceptionalism and narratives that America never did anything wrong.
Time to make museums similar to Holocaust museums in Europe in former slave market buildings in the South, mark the places where black people were killed and erect the monuments for those who fight against slavery and segregation.
Just in front of General Lee statue.
Past cannot be removed by removing the monuments - it can only be brought back to the present.
Nation which forget its history has no future.

I don't feel threatened by Nazi/ skinhead. They are such a small part of society they don't matter. While this was unfortunate event-- more violence on a daily basis over drugs gangs et al that whole scene should've been a non event. First town should have done what it had to do to keep them out or to shut it down quickly. Secondly and I think where Trump Saturday comment come from-- those protestors came for violent scene(they came stocked with gear). There was culpability in their actions. If they don't protest-- no one gets hurt-- police get these arseholes out in 30 minutes. Why people giving kkk / nazi even one second of attention? Let cops do the job.

The protest was to bring awareness to how white people have been neglected and shamed for the past 17yrs especially under the Obama/Hillary administration. Calling it White supremists and racism without distinguishing it from white nationalism is yet another example of politians and the media misleading the sheep while sealing the all the facts and burying them deep below the swap vault. Instead of acknowledging the facts & opening it up to a long overdue discussion. A discussion that would abolish the swamp. Ending divide and conquer and essentially putting them all out of work and drastically altering their lifestyles

Guns, what you dont understand is that everybody suffered under Obama/Clinton but the very wealthy, who got back almost entirely all the gains from the recovery. People of color on the whole did worse because they had less to begin with.

What those marchers (and I guess you) are missing is that the Obama/Clinton idea of being multicultural wasn't about bringing opportunites to people of color who have been left behind in poor and middle class communities. It was about making the movers and shakers who have the largest say in how this country is run, who keep increasing the gap between the rich and everyone else, a beautiful multicultural rainbow.

You can point the fingers at the millions of people of color as part of the problem, but the truth is most of them were used like you, and other like minded people were. No point in blaming the pawns in this game. You do that and its a complete fail.

GTFOH!!! Obama wasn't about helping people of color, the poor and middle class? Are you trying to say that Obama was using the poor and minorities? You are spreading LIES and BS! The actual causes of inequality started before Obama. The SYSTEM of inequality was in place and exacerbated by the Great Recession which Obama did not cause.

"Turns out that the African-American community and Latino community were hit especially hard," Sanders said. "As I understand it, the African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

That claim stood out to us. Is it true that black wealth was slashed so dramatically as a result of the financial crisis?

Sanders understood correctly. His campaign referred us to a 2013 report from the National Association of Real Estate Brokers.

"According to the report, African-Americans have lost over half of their wealth since the beginning of the recession through falling homeownership rates and loss of jobs," it reads.

The report refers to Pew Research Center data from 2011 that shows the median net worth of black households decreased by 53 percent from $12,124 in 2005 to $5,677 in 2009. Technically, this loss fits the timeline of the housing crisis in 2006.

A 2014 Pew report more closely follows the financial crisis of 2007. According to that report, median net worth of the black household decreased from $19,200 in 2007 to $11,000 in 2013 (in 2013 dollars). That’s a loss of 43 percent.

Of course, the two economic crises are intertwined, and both Pew reports note that the housing bubble and the recession that followed "took a far greater toll on the wealth of minorities than whites."

Census Bureau data corroborates, if not magnifies, this point: Black median net worth decreased 61 percent from 2005 to 2009. Whites, in contrast, lost 21 percent of their wealth.

Our ruling

Sanders said, "The African-American community lost half of their wealth as a result of the Wall Street collapse."

Estimates for how much wealth blacks lost from 2005 to 2009 — as a result of the housing bubble — range from 53 percent to 61 percent. African-American net worth plummeted 43 percent from 2007 to 2013 — as a result of the financial crisis.

Because the two financial crises are inseparable, we won’t quibble with Sanders’ timeline. We rate his claim True.