Jobs of people that donated to Bernie Sanders

Explains a lot.

So 71.4% of donors were currently employed?

>cant into graphs

Try again.

>OP falls core classic Fox News Shill Graph (TM)
>Proudly posts it on Sup Forums
Aww, poor guy

Do retirees count as "unemployed"? They're 23% of the population.

I'll bet those Fox dimwits thought it meant "lazy bums sitting on the couch". They're so gullible.

students count as not working

Shhh these are the same people who factored in active military personnel into the "takers" because they were being paid by the government.

Note that it says "not working." Interesting phrasing. Not "unemployed" or "on benefits," but not working. That can mean a lot of things. They clearly chose that to fudge the numbers.

You know your candidate is ACTUALLY non-establishment when he's already losing yet they feel the need to falashisly bash him

shut up

Indeed you cant

Where are the graphs for the other candidates?

They didn't make them my glorious nip friend. This is what you would call a hit piece. Just there to discredit a certain candidate. They don't actually care about informing people

>falashisly
If you don't know how to spell a word look it up for fuck's sake, don't just guess

I thought "Panera employee" would top the list for sure.

English isn't my first language you fucking leaf

Woah, no need to attack someone maple syrupiciously like that.

Little to no retirees work for Sanders. That number represents Gender Studies majors and welfare, sorry bernouts

That's a major difference between Bernie and Trump. They both get a lot of grassroots support from the lower and middle classes but Bernie's is from unemployed losers and people in cucked leftist fields like education and healthcare while Trump's is average working people who are mentally healthy and have their lives in order.

Ignoring Sup Forums neets of course but they're a small component.

Ten feet higher. Can you understand that?

>no retirees work for Sanders

I'm going to give you a couple minutes to reflect on this statement and try again.

You know people can be unemployed through no fault of their own, right? You can go to a good school, make good grades, get a real degree and still be unemployed. It's called an 8 year "recession"

>what are students

>mfw the bernie campaign was just a clever ruse to fool dumb college kids into giving him donations from the student loan money, thinking it would be an investment after he clears their student loan debt.

Only a jew could think of something so devilish

True unfortunately. I have an engineering degree and it took me a shamefully long time for me to get a job, even with good grades and a few connections. Big companies sometimes hire at a glacial pace.

>Trump supporters have their lives together
Literally laughed out loud.
>Generally uneductaed (no college in an information based economy, good call)
>Loses their jobs to mexicans (hurr build wall)
>Loses job to overseas
>Angry that they need to suck the gov't tit
>"I'll vote trump, he'll make me employable again :,,,,("

Delusional

support*
That typo really had you jumping out of seat? Haven't got anything intelligent to say I suppose.
>You know people can be unemployed through no fault of their own, right?
It's certainly possible, but it's still suspect that 1/3 of the man's support comes from the unemployed
>.You can go to a good school, make good grades, get a real degree and still be unemployed.
Ahh, is that what the Sanders supporters are doing? Strange, most of the ones I know are women's studies majors.

It's source is the LA Times and you can easily google it to find the original source.

But go ahead and keep making fun of Fox News.

>Haven't got anything intelligent to say I suppose.

Says the guy who can't even use the right words. That goes beyond a typo, which I would have ignored.

I'm not disputing the source. In fact, I'm agreeing with the source.

All it says is "not working." That could mean they're students (which makes up a pretty hefty portion of his supporters), retired, or unemployed. Less than 30% not working with those groups in mind isn't bad. I'd hate to see Trumps "they took er jubs" unemployment rates

>Get a job!
>Fuck your trying to get a job!
Just kill yourselves

because if you're under 30 it's impossible to get a job unless your family is rich and know corporate CEOs who can get you hired. globalization and immigration have destroyed almost all the jobs for regular native born white americans.

Fuck you both it takes two seconds to Google and it saves you from looking retarded
Like fuck grammar but spelling is the simplest shit

Well that's a very misleading graph.

Sanders polls well with young people, many of them are just starting out and do not have a stable source of income yet if they even have income at all.

Source: LA Times

the difference is trump voters are older, they grew up in an era where it was still possible for native born whites to get jobs. that era ended about 15 years ago. the only way to get a job these days is to have a rich family or to be an affirmative action diversity hire.

see
Then go fuck yourself.

You all sound like Obama when the jobs reports come out.

You're either producing or consuming, it doesn't matter if you're a retiree on SS or a kid blowing through government loans on your arts degree. And consumers love candidates who promise them more free resources to consume.

I don't doubt the numbers are accurate, but Fox News' graphs frequently display the information in an intentionally confusing or misleading way. Check this one out.

Obamacare is bad enough you should not have to resort to misleading people to get them against it.

>And consumers love candidates who promise them more free resources to consume.

Like tax cuts for the rich? How is that different?

>That goes beyond a typo, which I would have ignored.
I absentmindedly typed the wrong word. Actually, given the context, the fact that you couldn't figure that out must make you incredibly stupid.
> That could
It very well could, but let's be honest here.
>hat could mean they're students (which makes up a pretty hefty portion of his supporters)
This alone is a strike against him.
> I'd hate to see Trumps "they took er jubs" unemployment rates
They COULD be looking for work.I thought we weren't supposed to assume the worst? or does that not matter when it comes to le ebil drumpf
Anyway, his supporters earn 20k more on average than Sanders'.

Surely they're working minimum wage jobs, a reason why they want $15/hour

>Actually, given the context, the fact that you couldn't figure that out must make you incredibly stupid.

I'm dumb because I couldn't interpret your stupidity? Great bait mate. I'm done with you.

hardly anyone in america produces anymore. america is a post-production leech economy, fueled by pointless, unproductive industries like finance and pays its least-skilled, most incompetent people (corporate CEOs) the most money.

>I'm dumb because I couldn't interpret your stupidity? Great bait mate. I'm done with you.
You're dumb because you can't into context.
>I'm done
Did you ever start to begin with? You've done nothing but point out an absentminded mistake. As I said, you want intelligence.

>fox news
>fair and balanced
>graph scale that makes 6/7 look like 1/4
>falling for this

Have you been to a college campus in the past 2 years? They're literally all Sanders supporters. I'm telling you, that's making a major impact on those numbers.

>I thought we weren't supposed to assume the worst? or does that not matter when it comes to le ebil drumpf
No, I'm just following the format you laid out. I don't think being unemployed is a character flaw because most people who are unemployed want to work. You're the one who's trying to discredit sanders because you think some of his base is unemployed

oh and of course america's "tech" industry largely isn't about producing meaningful technological innovations, but about finding easier ways to let women be sluts.

I saw an article yesterday that more people are working into their seventies

wow this is slimy and manipulative even for fox

Well there's about 41.2% of the bernie sanders donors that are unaccounted for on that graph so maybe they're under that "other" category.

To be honest no media outlet is balanced. You see CNN and NYT talking about wage inequality like it's a real thing while it's the same process and that poster's image.

Actually LOLing. Might ROFLMAO.

Bernie supporters are 1/4 NEETs? Holy Shit

what about the other ~50% thats not on the graph m80

I wasn't asked any employment questions when I donated.

CNN does it out of incompetence. I hold Fox News to a higher standard the same way you would give the retard an A for eating a butterfly.

>They're literally all Sanders supporters
I don't doubt that- more and more students are into useless majors and will need socialism to escape working at starbucks for eternity.
> I don't think being unemployed is a character flaw
Who said it was? You think really too poorly

Sanders' base has the most to gain from socialism, that's no coincidence. They want free shit.

Probably mostly service industry jobs. They wouldn't wanna give the impression that people are struggling in America despite working. Doesn't fit into the narrative of the entitled millennial

they just want to be able to have a decent job like people used to be able to in the 50s-70s before reagan-style capitalism destroyed america and created mass unemployment.

>You think really too poorly

>falashisly
This is your brain on Bernie. Not surprised, though; you said this
Then got your anus kicked in by
You're definitely a Bern victim.

>they just want to be able to have a decent job
I can sympathize with this, but, lad, when you've been on a university campus for as long as I have, you start to realize it's hopeless. Even the most earnest humanities majors- and humanities/ psychology are among the most popular majors today- don't put in enough work. They simply don't give a shit.
These kids need to think of switching majors into something highly specific, or learning a trade, because the only other option is to take handouts while everyone else does the work.
>reagan-style capitalism destroyed america
Reagan's job creation numbers were stupendous actually. The fact is, like Obama said, those jobs aren't coming back. We're simply moving towards an economy without much room for the middle class.

>Like tax cuts for the rich? How is that different?

Spoken like a true consumer. The difference, a normal person can tell you, is that a rich person earned the money to which you feel entitled.

It was not free; it was the product of a voluntary transaction where the earner traded goods and/or services for it. It didn't simply appear out of the ether at the Federal Reserve, radiating out from Washington.

Those who don't understand the difference between allowing a producer to keep his earnings and giving a consumer more unearned resources are the reason this nation is in its death throes.

>america is a post-production leech economy, fueled by pointless, unproductive industries like finance

If another person chose to pay for it, it could hardly be called unproductive. Are you suggesting that people choose to give away their money for nothing in return? Perhaps so, after all, if that person didn't earn the money themselves, then why should they be attached to it?

>and pays its least-skilled, most incompetent people (corporate CEOs) the most money.

I always get a good laugh out of this. If such positions require no skill or intelligence, yet pay grossly more than the product is worth, why doesn't everyone become a CEO of their own start-up? Must be because the true brains trust is behind the counter at Starbucks.

It's just bantz user, don't take it seriously

Don't get him started. He'll call you a moron for not interpreting his posts correctly.

> only 2.6% of them are legal

>The difference, a normal person can tell you, is that a rich person earned the money to which you feel entitled.

Okay, so then let's cut all taxes for the working man since he earned that money. It's the same thing as raising his wages, just spun a different way.

>crying this hard

then you have to force them to come back. you have to treat the globalist elites like an enemy force you're at war with and defeat them by any means necessary.

>I want to suck your dick hard

Wow, I think this is what you really meant to say, but this is not appropriate.

>Okay, so then let's cut all taxes for the working man since he earned that money.

Abolish the income tax? Sounds like a plan to me.

each notch on that chart is 200,000 people

Yes, but does Sanders even propose to do this? He seems to favor the European model, where a good amount of the population will not be doing much of anything.

You don't use a bar graph unless you start it at zero. It destroys the scale which is the entire point of a bar graph.

sanders would at least be much harder on trade deals and visa abuse than trump would be. when it all comes down to it trump will end up doing what the rich people want him to do, he has made every indication of this fact.

in industry you'll rarely ever see a graph that starts at 0, today's world is more interested in quarters than decades.

if you have a bar graph and every subject on the graph is over 5 million, it would make sense to start at 5 million.

That makes more sense when comparing more than two figures.

>It's source is the LA Times
That's currently sucking Hillary's big hairy dick as hard as they can.

It's just as biased and shitty at making graphs as Fox News is.

in this case they were talking about grabbing a million subscribers in 4 days that must go through a website that was known for being unreliable.

im not a fox news fan, but i'd give this one a pass, they were trying to illustrate a point, and dramatization is forgivable in this case.

>56%
ok wheres the rest? The fuck is this

So basically his campaign is funded by government welfare money? KEK

I saw this misleading chart on another site, but I'm not sure.

I like how it itemizes all of the other industries so the "NOT WORKING" bar can be longer than the rest.

And then the numbers don't even add up to 100%.

The adequate type of chart for this would be a pie chart but that wouldn't be misleading enough I guess.

What about the other 50 or so percent?