• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker survives recall effort, NBC News projects

OnWisconsin said:
Good results being? He said he balanced the budget, but he did not. He is paying down the interest on the deficit and by using some accounting tricks makes it look as though he has paid off the state deficit. He has been dead-last in the nation as far as job creation. He said he reduced taxes, however, by reducing the earned-income credit, and removing the homestead credit he has effectively raised the taxes on the poorest in the state. He has had nearly 2 years now to turn this state around, when is it going to happen?
Click to expand...

I get your point, but the bolded, I support. In fact, I support getting rid of it altogether actually.

*edit.. my bad. I mistook it. I had read that plus the following line and was thinking of the housing tax credit.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
I know, BLS.gov is a partisan site but only when it offers data that doesn't support your point of view.
Click to expand...

When you learn how to read stats like trends the BLS shows, then maybe you'd have a point. Until then you just keep believing that Bush is 100% repsonsible for not protecting us on 9/11.
 
poweRob said:
When you learn how to read stats like trends the BLS shows, then maybe you'd have a point. Until then you just keep believing that Bush is 100% repsonsible for not protecting us on 9/11.
Click to expand...

I keep waiting for you to teach me how to read the data but all I get are platitudes.

Would love to have you explain these trends to me

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LASST55000003
 
Last edited:
John Tucker said:
For the 1700th time, I don't listen to talk radio, I don't like Rush and I really don't like Sean Hannity that much either. Bill Oreilly is cool with me, he's not a far right nut job. Glenn Beck is "ok" but he gets too far right and crazy as well.
Click to expand...

You do listen rush, hannity, and o'reilly--they're the sole source of your information about the whole world (along w/foxnews).

If that weren't true, then you (like all other conservatives) wouldn't be ignorant/naive enough to believe that the GOP even remotely stands for anything close to fiscal responsibility. . .

In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner said he believes taxpayers should help pick up the tab for the clean up.

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill--BP and the federal government--should take full responsibility for what's happening there," Boehner said at his weekly press conference this morning.

GOP Leader Boehner: Taxpayers Should Pay For This BP Oil Mess - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Republican Congressmen wrote letters to DOE supporting energy loans for their districts

In his testimony before a Congressional Committee investigating the Solyndra bankruptcy, Energy Secretary Chu said that he had over 500 letters from GOP Congressmen urging him to support the very loans they are trying to kill.

USA Today uncovers Republicans
Click to expand...
 
poweRob said:
Exactly. Johnson is at the top of my list right now actually. If he were to get into the debates, I think his chances of getting elected are rather decent.
Click to expand...

I saw this, guffawed, and went to search for an old post I made to point out how ridiculous this expectation or thought is. Then I realized, upon seeing the other post, that it was actually made in response to you lamenting about Johnson probably not getting into the debates. At least at that point you didn't suggest that somehow getting in the debates would give him a reasonable chance, or even an outside chance, to win.

Zyphlin said:
The Libertarian Party couldn't manage even .5% of the popular vote last year. That's less than half a percent. Same goes for 2004. Guess what, same goes for 2000 as well. Actually, if you add up their percentage of the popular vote for the past THREE Presidential elections you BARELY get over 1% total of the popular vote (1.08%). Look at that again, you've got to add up their votes for the past three elections to even get to 1% of the popular vote. Over the past twenty years, that's 6 elections, they've not even broken 2.5% combined (2.33%) with their highest in that span being half a percent in 1996. That's pathetic.

Even if we assumed that being in the debates would give them...hell, lets go crazy...a 500% bump in their COMBINED results they'd still only have 14% of the popular vote. And that's going off their combined totals from 6 elections. Going off their average, to get to that same measely 14%, would mean that they'd need a 3,500% bump. To get from their average over the past 20 years (.39) to even a THIRD of the popular vote would mean an increase of almost 8,500%. I don't care if they had a debate that was nothing BUT the Libertarian candidate on stage, there's no way in hell that it's going to give them a 500% bump let alone one 17 times that amount.

A libertarian candidate can't even garner enough interest on their own merits and platform to warrant 1% of the popular vote, there's no good reason to waste the voteres time by inviting them into the debates because the libertarians have no better claim (unless they use their same generalized style of argument used against them) for that than the Constitutional party, the Green party, random independents, etc. Which means you suddenly have Presidential debates watered down, wasting time and doing a disservice to the voters, with half a dozen candidates who are about as likely as Mickey Mouse of having any impact on the national election.

Get a Libertarian Candidate who can poll at the necessary level of 15% and they'll get in on the debates. Hell, I'd be fine at putting it at 10%...last election cycle Bobb Barr didn't even garner that much in any poll. Till then, Johnson has no more business in a Presidential debate than Grimace or that crazy dude down the street holding a "the end is nigh" sign.
Click to expand...

As Jesse Venture and Ross Perot proved what can happen when you are allowed to participate in the debates. The only other issue is the Libertarian ballot access in all states.
Click to expand...

Ventura was on a state level. Ross Perot also had oodles of Cash, had managed to poll well enough to hit 15% prior to the debates (Which Johnson hasn't but he has the same shot to do it was Perot), and wasn't tied ideologically to a specific party.
 
Zyphlin said:
I saw this, guffawed, and went to search for an old post I made to point out how ridiculous this expectation or thought is. Then I realized, upon seeing the other post, that it was actually made in response to you lamenting about Johnson probably not getting into the debates. At least at that point you didn't suggest that somehow getting in the debates would give him a reasonable chance, or even an outside chance, to win.





Ventura was on a state level. Ross Perot also had oodles of Cash, had managed to poll well enough to hit 15% prior to the debates (Which Johnson hasn't but he has the same shot to do it was Perot), and wasn't tied ideologically to a specific party.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, Perot did not poll at 15% before the debates and that 15% threshold to make it into the debates was put into place after Perot... precisely because of Perot. He breached 15% after the debates because of the debates if I'm not mistaken. CPD moves the goal posts.
 
Conservative said:
Then of course there is this trend, please explain it to me? Good or bad trend?

Best/Worst States for Business 2011 | ChiefExecutive.net | Chief Executive Magazine
Click to expand...

If you read those as bad on Obama, then you don't know how to read. Notice the trend prior to January 20, 2009 and then the turnaround. When you do your standard cut and past garbage you put 100% responsibility of all the totals, (unemployment and such) on Obama. Therefore, by your logic, you MUST blame Bush 100% for us being attacked on 9/11.

The only other ploy you enact is your other ridiculous partisan comments that when there is a GOP prez and Dem congress it's the Dem congress' fault and when it's a Dem pres and GOP controlled congress it's the Dem president's fault.

Partisan hackery at it's finest.
 
poweRob said:
If I recall correctly, Perot did not poll at 15% before the debates and that 15% threshold to make it into the debates was put into place after Perot... precisely because of Perot. He breached 15% after the debates because of the debates if I'm not mistaken. CPD moves the goal posts.
Click to expand...

A third party candidate is Obama's only hope this time around. He cannot run on his record and can only win if a third party candidate takes enough votes away from Romney.
 
poweRob said:
If you read those as bad on Obama, then you don't know how to read. Notice the trend prior to January 20, 2009 and then the turnaround. When you do your standard cut and past garbage you put 100% responsibility of all the totals, (unemployment and such) on Obama. Therefore, by your logic, you MUST blame Bush 100% for us being attacked on 9/11.

The only other ploy you enact is your other ridiculous partisan comments that when there is a GOP prez and Dem congress it's the Dem congress' fault and when it's a Dem pres and GOP controlled congress it's the Dem president's fault.

Partisan hackery at it's finest.
Click to expand...

If you bothered to pay attention, Republicans won Governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pa in November 2010 taking office in January. For someone who says they aren't voting for Obama you sure try hard to defend him while ignoring reality.
 
Conservative said:
If you bothered to pay attention, Republicans won Governorships in Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pa in November 2010 taking office in January. For someone who says they aren't voting for Obama you sure try hard to defend him while ignoring reality.
Click to expand...

I just try to defend facts. You however... are NOW deploying a new partisan hackery tactic of giving the turnaround and positive stat credits to the governors now while at the very same time, nonstop blaming Obama for all the negatives in the very same years. All without stating much less proving what policy did what. You got all your bases covered in that partisan bubble you live in.
 
Conservative said:
A third party candidate is Obama's only hope this time around. He cannot run on his record and can only win if a third party candidate takes enough votes away from Romney.
Click to expand...

blah blah blah Obama Obama Obama. You know you've met an overly partisan guy in a political forum when they've made so many posts about the person they hate and never mention the person they intend to support or why... other than "he isn't the person I hate."
 
Zyphlin said:
I saw this, guffawed, and went to search for an old post I made to point out how ridiculous this expectation or thought is. Then I realized, upon seeing the other post, that it was actually made in response to you lamenting about Johnson probably not getting into the debates. At least at that point you didn't suggest that somehow getting in the debates would give him a reasonable chance, or even an outside chance, to win.





Ventura was on a state level. Ross Perot also had oodles of Cash, had managed to poll well enough to hit 15% prior to the debates (Which Johnson hasn't but he has the same shot to do it was Perot), and wasn't tied ideologically to a specific party.
Click to expand...

I don't think Johnson has a chance to win, but he was on Stewart the other night and he claimed that he's polling at 8% and rising, so it's not inconceivable that he could sneak into a debate or two.
 
poweRob said:
I just try to defend facts. You however... are NOW deploying a new partisan hackery tactic of giving the turnaround and positive stat credits to the governors now while at the very same time, nonstop blaming Obama for all the negatives in the very same years. All without stating much less proving what policy did what. You got all your bases covered in that partisan bubble you live in.
Click to expand...

You accuse everyone on the right of "partisanship", but you are the one who tried comparing economic issues to a terrorist attack on 9/11. Just a few posts back.

It always intrigues me when liberals compare apples to oranges, then try to pass it off as relevant. Like how they compare federal income tax rates to capital gains tax rates. Because that's what they do when they make comments like, "warren buffet pays less taxes than his secretary". Or when they compare economic trends to the country being attacked by terrorists. lol....just leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.
 
poweRob said:
If I recall correctly, Perot did not poll at 15% before the debates and that 15% threshold to make it into the debates was put into place after Perot... precisely because of Perot. He breached 15% after the debates because of the debates if I'm not mistaken. CPD moves the goal posts.
Click to expand...

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure Perot was over 20% at some point PRIOR to the debates (and prior to originally dropping out). Even if they did institute the 15% rule after him, which I'm not sure on that but is possible, he'd still have met that requirement.

Ah, here we go...

Gallup Poll. From April to Mid June, Perot managed to poll at 24% or higher, topping out at 39% (actually leading Clinton and Bush). Mind you this was before any "debates" occured and he managed those numbers. While his numbers prior to the debate...and note, post him dropping out of the race...had dropped, starting at 8% when he came back in and hovering in the low 10's prior to the debate (The Gallup picture doesn't show specific dates). It did rise some, but even after getting on the debates Perot never managed to get back to the numbers he originally was showing. But its unquestionable that during the year of the Presidential election Perot managed to get above 15% in a national opinion poll. Not only did he get above it, he managed to more than double that amount.

Gallop was the only national poll I could easily find information on for back then.

Conversely...

Johnson has managed 7% support in a Public Policy Polling national poll recently. Beyond that he's not been listed, but "other" has managed 1% in a CNN naitonal poll, 1% in an ABC/WaPo national poll, and 3% in a Fox News national poll. He doesn't seem to blip on the gallop radar on first look.

Perot, prior to debates, managed to make a compelling enough appeal to the American people to garner significant and substantial public support to the point where he actually lead in a national poll during the election year. He gave compelling and significant reason why he should be part of the debates...not because he needed them to get support but because he HAD support and thus should be in them. Johnson can't even crack 10% support at this point in one poll let alone potentially consistently over a few.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I don't think Johnson has a chance to win, but he was on Stewart the other night and he claimed that he's polling at 8% and rising, so it's not inconceivable that he could sneak into a debate or two.
Click to expand...

Gonna pull out Politfact here, who decided to look into the claim Link

He didn't actually reach 8%, he reached 7% in a PPP poll. That was back in March. The one in April had him slip from 7% to 6%, so a downward trend. There hasn't been another PPP poll out since. The other polls don't have him listed but list an other. Other tends to get 3% or less in those polls.

Mind you, at this point in time, Perot was polling in the mid to high 20's and into the 30's.

It should be absolutely as inconcievable that Johnson sneaks into a debate as it is that any other random third party candidate with little to no recognition or support on a national scale should be able to get into it.

Now mind you, I actually like a lot of what Johnson says and I may very well be voting for him myself. But I'm also not keen to let my political view point completely skew me from being able to reasonably look at reality and read obvious trends nor make outlandish procolomations that are just a shade bit more believable than saying I'll crap gold tonight. I'm all for a 3rd party getting into debates and doing well. I'd love to see it. But they need to be able to raise a reasonable level of excitement, support, and awareness on their own to show a legitimate argument that it's worth while for them to be accepted into a debate but for other 3rd party candidates shouldn't be. While Libertarians may be a bigger name right now than most other third parties...in terms of electoins and polling support, there's not a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Gonna pull out Politfact here, who decided to look into the claim Link

He didn't actually reach 8%, he reached 7% in a PPP poll. That was back in March. The one in April had him slip from 7% to 6%, so a downward trend. There hasn't been another PPP poll out since. The other polls don't have him listed but list an other. Other tends to get 3% or less in those polls.

Mind you, at this point in time, Perot was polling in the mid to high 20's and into the 30's.

It should be absolutely as inconcievable that Johnson sneaks into a debate as it is that any other random third party candidate with little to no recognition or support on a national scale should be able to get into it.

Now mind you, I actually like a lot of what Johnson says and I may very well be voting for him myself. But I'm also not keen to let my political view point completely skew me from being able to reasonably look at reality and read obvious trends nor make outlandish procolomations that are just a shade bit more believable than saying I'll crap gold tonight. I'm all for a 3rd party getting into debates and doing well. I'd love to see it. But they need to be able to raise a reasonable level of excitement, support, and awareness on their own to show a legitimate argument that it's worth while for them to be accepted into a debate but for other 3rd party candidates shouldn't be. While Libertarians may be a bigger name right now than most other third parties...in terms of electoins and polling support, there's not a huge difference.
Click to expand...

I agree it's quite unlikely. Just saying ... not inconceivable. I say that because you never know if or when the media might take some interest and give him at least a tiny bit of exposure. I think he will also get the support of many Paul backers. And then there's the fact that people are generally not thrilled with either candidate or either party. If I had to guess I'd put his chances of making it into a debate at about 5%.
 
poweRob said:
I just try to defend facts. You however... are NOW deploying a new partisan hackery tactic of giving the turnaround and positive stat credits to the governors now while at the very same time, nonstop blaming Obama for all the negatives in the very same years. All without stating much less proving what policy did what. You got all your bases covered in that partisan bubble you live in.
Click to expand...

Let me remind you in the real world, not the liberal world, results matter. Why is it with a liberal that liking is more important generating results. We aren't selecting American Idol, although it is hard to tell with Obama and his supporters. Results matter so tell me what econonic results has Obama generated that I should be happy about? With you it always claims that I am partisan, results aren't partisan, they are what they are and that doesn't bode well for the guy you claim you aren't voting for
 
Conservative said:
Let me remind you in the real world, not the liberal world, results matter. Why is it with a liberal that liking is more important generating results. We aren't selecting American Idol, although it is hard to tell with Obama and his supporters. Results matter so tell me what econonic results has Obama generated that I should be happy about? With you it always claims that I am partisan, results aren't partisan, they are what they are and that doesn't bode well for the guy you claim you aren't voting for
Click to expand...

Well an increase in private sector employment over public sector employment........
 
winston53660 said:
Well an increase in private sector employment over public sector employment........
Click to expand...

At a cost of 5.2 trillion added to the debt? Sorry, try again. there aren't enough jobs created to pay for that spending. 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans haven't seen that private sector gain and exactly what has Obama done to create private sector jobs? Federal jobs are up, and that is what Obama has control over. Maybe a few more fund raisers while Rome is burning?
 
Conservative said:
At a cost of 5.2 trillion added to the debt? Sorry, try again. there aren't enough jobs created to pay for that spending. 23 million unemployed/under employed Americans haven't seen that private sector gain and exactly what has Obama done to create private sector jobs? Federal jobs are up, and that is what Obama has control over. Maybe a few more fund raisers while Rome is burning?
Click to expand...

So you don't support the private sector:shrug:

federal-government-employment.jpg

Under Reagan, federal employment increased by 200,000.
Under Obama, federal employment increased by 38,000 (thru 3/12).
Under both, federal employment held the same % relative to population.
The up-tick in 2010 was mostly census workers, but some administration of the Obama's jobs stimulus.

Thanxs mullah
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...nt-out-control-true-false.html#post1060572938
 
winston53660 said:
So you don't support the private sector:shrug:

View attachment 67128873

Under Reagan, federal employment increased by 200,000.
Under Obama, federal employment increased by 38,000 (thru 3/12).
Under both, federal employment held the same % relative to population.
The up-tick in 2010 was mostly census workers, but some administration of the Obama's jobs stimulus.

Thanxs mullah
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...nt-out-control-true-false.html#post1060572938
Click to expand...

What economic policy did Obama implement to create private sector jobs? This is the worst recovery on record and 5.2 trillion added to the debt to generate these numbers is shameful

Why don't you have Obama run against the Reagan record and see how that works out because he certainly cannot run on his own. Reagan economy created over 16 million jobs and that is a net increase. Obama needs to do a more fund raisers and a few more TV shows so the Obama robots see him and buy the rhetoric.

I know how bad you want to compare Obama to Bush, Obama to Reagan, but Obama cannot even compete against Carter so he needs to take on someone more his own size. Obama is making Carter look good though
 
winston53660 said:
So you don't support the private sector:shrug:

View attachment 67128873

Under Reagan, federal employment increased by 200,000.
Under Obama, federal employment increased by 38,000 (thru 3/12).
Under both, federal employment held the same % relative to population.
The up-tick in 2010 was mostly census workers, but some administration of the Obama's jobs stimulus.

Thanxs mullah
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...nt-out-control-true-false.html#post1060572938
Click to expand...

Interesting numbers you posted, Too bad they don't agree with reality

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions.
Click to expand...

You should probably tell the OMB their numbers are wrong
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom