• 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!

Stupidity of the American Voter?

The electorate that had the lowest turnout since WWII? :YAWN:

Failed gloat post... yet another dodge from the facts.

According to exit polls, there were 5.1 million more votes for Republican candidates than Democrat candidates, out of 75 million votes.

If anything, the lower voter turnout just shows that the electorate believes that Republicans are slightly less terrible than Democrats.
 
According to exit polls, there were 5.1 million more votes for Republican candidates than Democrat candidates, out of 75 million votes.

If anything, the lower voter turnout just shows that the electorate believes that Republicans are slightly less terrible than Democrats.

I actually believe just the opposite. The Democrats are slightly less terrible than the Republicans.

Not to mention that dems just don't show up for midterms. The general will tell the tale and all this repub gloating will turn to tears and they will definitely repeatedly say "the voting electorate is soooo stupid."
 
LOL... the economy is rolling by comparison to where it was when Bush handed his flaming poo economy over.

Um... no.

fredgraph.png
 
I actually believe just the opposite. The Democrats are slightly less terrible than the Republicans.

Of course you would believe that, but a simple message on all of their progress thus far should have been enough to sway voters.

If anything, voters can't stand either of you. As much as everyone blames Republicans for shutting down the government, they didn't lose...
 
I actually believe just the opposite. The Democrats are slightly less terrible than the Republicans.

Not to mention that dems just don't show up for midterms. The general will tell the tale and all this repub gloating will turn to tears and they will definitely repeatedly say "the voting electorate is soooo stupid."

Yep, we probably can use the architect of Obamacare as a spokesperson. Seems he knows the liberal base quite well
 
Of course you would believe that, but a simple message on all of their progress thus far should have been enough to sway voters.

If anything, voters can't stand either of you. As much as everyone blames Republicans for shutting down the government, they didn't lose...

lol... you are playing the "'YOU PEOPLE' becasue I'm the outsider" card. I'm an independent liberal... Much more liberal than the Dems have been. What may make me a dem supporter full throttle is if Bernie Sanders runs for Prez as a Dem.
 
Could be better... but gaining well over 200,000 jobs a month as opposed to losing 700,000 jobs a month... massive improvement.

LOL, still don't recognize discouraged workers in your numbers do you. Let me help you and realize these people are also unemployed but not counted

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2004 to 2014

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059 1006 865 968 830 821 852 844 802 813 979 1068 909
2013 804 885 803 835 780 1027 988 866 852 815 762 917 861
2014 837 755 698 783 697 676 741 775 698 770

Notice how many months the number is much higher than 700,000? Seems the architect of Obamacare got it right in describing the Obama supporters. They will buy just about anything
 
LOL, still don't recognize discouraged workers in your numbers do you. Let me help you and realize these people are also unemployed but not counted



Notice how many months the number is much higher than 700,000? Seems the architect of Obamacare got it right in describing the Obama supporters. They will buy just about anything

lol... more Conservative cut and paste but can't read his own info thing. GRRRRREEEEEEAAAAAAT!
 
Yep, we probably can use the architect of Obamacare as a spokesperson. Seems he knows the liberal base quite well

"THE architect or "an architect?" I still haven't figured out just how instrumental this guy was in the whole equation of the thing.

But I do not doubt for a second that the public was hoodwinked in one way or another. Not just with Obamacare but many, many other actions as well. That is the way they do business in Washington. I do not recall any administration, or party, that did/does not utilize this method of operating. I though it was a given and everyone knew and expected such actions.
 
lol... more Conservative cut and paste but can't read his own info thing. GRRRRREEEEEEAAAAAAT!

Really? SO how about you reading it for me especially the 2010 numbers after all those shovels were delivered? What am I missing?
 
You forgot to mention they make ****ty beer too.

I would disagree. While I do not drink beer anymore, Labatts was one of my favorite brands. Molson was pretty good

but then again, my favorite beer was Rolling Rock so take my opinion on beer for what its worth
 
Could be better... but gaining well over 200,000 jobs a month as opposed to losing 700,000 jobs a month... massive improvement.

Job losses peaked at 700,000. It wasn't losing that much, as you can't exponentially loss that many jobs a month without the labour force being depleted at some point or another. The economy begins to loss jobs, the total number of jobs peak at some point, and then the losses begin to deteriorate, just like any other recession.

As for the massive improvement, I don't really see it. Even during the recession average hourly earnings growth was 3.59% annualised. Since the beginning of the economic expansion, annualised earnings averaged around 2%. This means that all of the good jobs that were eliminated in the aftermath of the recession have been replaced by low wage jobs. I guess that compared to no or low job growth is considered a 'massive improvement,' but it really only seems that way if you lower your expectations.
 
Really? SO how about you reading it for me especially the 2010 numbers after all those shovels were delivered? What am I missing?

Better yet... read it to us rather that just cutting and pasting. Stand on your own two feet. Tell me what it's saying... then it'll be a breeze to tell you what you are missing.
 
Job losses peaked at 700,000. It wasn't losing that much, as you can't exponentially loss that many jobs a month without the labour force being depleted at some point or another. The economy begins to loss jobs, the total number of jobs peak at some point, and then the losses begin to deteriorate, just like any other recession.

As for the massive improvement, I don't really see it. Even during the recession average hourly earnings growth was 3.59% annualised. Since the beginning of the economic expansion, annualised earnings averaged around 2%. This means that all of the good jobs that were eliminated in the aftermath of the recession have been replaced by low wage jobs. I guess that compared to no or low job growth is considered a 'massive improvement,' but it really only seems that way if you lower your expectations.

Whatever economic metric you want to use it will be better. Unemployment? MUCH better. GDP... much better because it's growing rather than collapsing. The only one I think isn't much better is the median income because jobs lost under the Great Bush recession are coming back but at lower wages in general.
 
Just speaking for myself here, but my world fell out from under my feet in 2006 when the plant moved to Mexico. By 2008 I was still unemployed and my life savings were circling the drain. By 2009 I was gainfully employed again making decent money. I get a 3% raise each year and I have started a successful side business serving court papers, after hours, that rakes me in 100.00-150.00 extra dollars a day. My life savings have rebounded and even skyrocketed.

Life is good here in Captain Americanville. But I give neither the blame or the credit to any politicians. I credit myself, (and I do so modestly. :mrgreen:)

Like Rush Limbaugh says, "If you don't like the bad economy, don't participate!"
 
Bush had the right idea....start privatizing it. Too many Americans just do not realize how much they are getting screwed by the government in regards to Social Security.

I think thats what it is-a lack of information. Ive been telling this to people for years, but many have never heard it before.
 
I think thats what it is-a lack of information. Ive been telling this to people for years, but many have never heard it before.

Yes. Privatize Social Security just as Bush tried to do. I encourage the entire Republican party to stand up and shout this from the hilltops. I wonder why they don't?
 
Did I say they were "shackled" or are you just making things up?

No, you ask the question...something about what happens when the Republicans LOOSES the Senate...

Once again...I didn't realize they were bound, shackled or tied up. Maybe you meant LOSES?
 
Back
Top Bottom