Runec: I never included the political parts. I removed something that perhaps you were interpreting as political so we can move past partisan politics and instead be happy about the low unemployment levels. No such luck. Seems your just here to start a partisan fight.
A) You still linked the article. On Breitbart. One of the most partisan sources possible.
B) The part you removed was about Obama.
C) What other possible interpretation is there when you link farking Breitbart?
You could have simply linked directly to data itself. But that would have shown that this is an ongoing trend that began long before Trump and revealed this is a non-story. When you view the data beyond the time scope of Trump's presidency it shows a consistent recovery under Obama and as a result of his administration. But if you do that, you can't hang a partisan bullshit article on it like Breitbart did.
This article exists solely to repeat some Obama critical quotes and footnote it with an implication that somehow Trump is responsible.
So don't try and turn this on anyone else.
Your trying so hard to do mental Olympics with this one. Just stop the answer is a simple one. I just.......... you know what, no. I'm just going to let this drive you nuts since you will probably never guess it.
unemployment levels for "black" Americans
Rujikin ~ This topic is about unemployment levels for "black" Americans.
for "black" Americans
... what you believe ≠ what you say. and it's weird.
lol I got thinking: Should we really consider them black if the amount of African DNA in them is less than or equal to half. They are definitely American but are they really "black" because genetically they could be a variety of things all of which would be equally valid.
If you're taking flak then your over the target.
That's more like it.
Heel/toe. Double clutch. Rev~match. Repeat.