• 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!

Is there a deeper reason for the unprecedented Partisanship in America?

Obama claimed he would shut down the coal industry. He did. There is all manner of articles written about the cost of his regulations.

If coal would go bust due to economic factors, Obama wouldn't have had to do anything.

Flashback 2008: Obama Promised To ?Bankrupt? Coal Companies | The Daily Caller


Obama had a better economy than Bush? 94 million people not employed? That's why Demokrats got slaughtered during Obama's reign? That's why The Blue Wall fell?

The Paris Climate deal is about as real as Obama's getting Assad's WMD.
It is [STRIKETHROUGH]difficult[/STRIKETHROUGH] impossible to take someone seriously who tries to pedal the "94 million people not employed" meme. That number includes everyone not employed, whether they want to work or not -- such as, retired seniors in nursing homes, students over 16 in high school and college, stay-at-home parents and playboys on yachts. It's been discredited universally.

Regardless of what Obama said in 2008, before he was president, coal was in decline.
coal-share-of-electricity-mark-perry-carpe-diem-580px.jpg


U.S. mining jobs have been declining since 1920 -- [SARCASM]so it's clearly all about those liberal environmental regulations:[/SARCASM]
Total_Coal_Employment.jpg
 
Last edited:
It is [STRIKETHROUGH]difficult[/STRIKETHROUGH] impossible to take someone seriously who tries to pedal the "94 million people not employed" meme. That number includes everyone not employed, whether they want to work or not -- such as, retired seniors in nursing homes, students over 16 in high school and college, stay-at-home parents and playboys on yachts. It's been discredited universally.

Regardless of what Obama said in 2008, before he was president, coal was in decline.
U.S. mining jobs have been declining since 1920 -- [SARCASM]so it's clearly all about those liberal environmental regulations:[/SARCASM]

94 million were unemployed. It's not discredited. It's not accepted by Leftists, but that's different, as Leftists do not like the truth.

The real unemployment rate was double or triple what was put out, because the long-term unemployed were thrown off the roles.

Yes, coal jobs have decreased, but Obama killed the industry. He did what he said he would. Once again, a prime example of a Leftists incapable of accepting the truth, and denying the goal of the individual who did precisely what he said he wanted to do.
 
The argument presumes an 18th century society where the food that I eat is grown or raised no farther than the next county and the air isn't spoiled from a neighboring state. This is not today in modern America. That's why I want the food that I eat here, but grown in the west or south, all have the same strict regulations. The same for power plants in one state that have their flumes go to other states.

Why keep changing the subject? The argument is quite simple - a local factory should be regulated at the state/local level. The food sold locally can also easily be regulated and inspected locally. Why should someone in Texas pay for food regulations in MA or MI?
 
94 million were unemployed. It's not discredited. It's not accepted by Leftists, but that's different, as Leftists do not like the truth.

The real unemployment rate was double or triple what was put out, because the long-term unemployed were thrown off the roles.

Yes, coal jobs have decreased, but Obama killed the industry. He did what he said he would. Once again, a prime example of a Leftists incapable of accepting the truth, and denying the goal of the individual who did precisely what he said he wanted to do.
The 94 million figure is absurd to anyone with working frontal lobs. Do you really think your 91 year old grandmother should be considered unemployed? Or your 16 year old in HS? The number is used to exaggerate the UE numbers to convince those with weak minds that unemployment is worse than it really is. And, if you are pedaling the line that people are off the rolls, you are just quoting a different measure, U-6, which has also dropped by 50% under Obama (17% to 9%). The fact about unemployment metrics is that they measure different things. Fortunately, they all move in tandem so we know the direction -- which all dropped sharply under Obama.

Again, regarding coal, market forces are killing coal (GOOD!) in favor of cleaner fuels.
 
Why keep changing the subject? The argument is quite simple - a local factory should be regulated at the state/local level. The food sold locally can also easily be regulated and inspected locally. Why should someone in Texas pay for food regulations in MA or MI?
For the same reason someone in Rhode Island pays taxes for the millions of miles of highways in Texas. We're a country.
 
For the same reason someone in Rhode Island pays taxes for the millions of miles of highways in Texas. We're a country.

We are also a country based on a federal government with specific and limited powers - see the US constitution for details.
 
We are also a country based on a federal government with specific and limited powers - see the US constitution for details.
So you are saying having the federal government regulate labor in a factory is not just a bad idea but it's unconstitutional?
 
So you are saying having the federal government regulate labor in a factory is not just a bad idea but it's unconstitutional?

Nope, I am saying that relying only on the federal government is stupid, lazy and inefficient.
 
The 94 million figure is absurd to anyone with working frontal lobs. Do you really think your 91 year old grandmother should be considered unemployed? Or your 16 year old in HS? The number is used to exaggerate the UE numbers to convince those with weak minds that unemployment is worse than it really is. And, if you are pedaling the line that people are off the rolls, you are just quoting a different measure, U-6, which has also dropped by 50% under Obama (17% to 9%). The fact about unemployment metrics is that they measure different things. Fortunately, they all move in tandem so we know the direction -- which all dropped sharply under Obama.

Again, regarding coal, market forces are killing coal (GOOD!) in favor of cleaner fuels.

94 million was the number. Had Trump been in office and had such an abysmal economic performance, he'd have been smacked with it by the propagandists on the left.

Regarding coal... now you've changed your song.
 
we had a coalescing event. Thousands of Americans died, and we went to war. What we have now that we didn't then is an actively oppositionist press.

We had an coalescing event. 9/11.

We were behind attempting to dismantle Al-Qaeda by going into Afghanistan.

What truly lost coalescing support was Iraq. It was a jump the shark moment of epic and deadly proportions.
 
94 million was the number. Had Trump been in office and had such an abysmal economic performance, he'd have been smacked with it by the propagandists on the left.

Regarding coal... now you've changed your song.
It's not an "abysmal" number. It's a fallacious number. As the WaPo Fact Checkers reported:
This is an absurd Four-Pinocchio claim, based on a real number. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, relying on a monthly survey known as the Current Population Survey (CPS), shows that, as of January 2016, 94.4 million Americans 16 years and older were “not in labor force.”

How is this number developed? Well, there is a civilian noninstitutional population of 254.1 million people, and 159.7 million are in the labor force. The difference yields the 94.4 million figure.
It's a phony number. Why? The link goes on:
It turns out that 93 percent do not want a job at all. The picture that emerges from a study of the data shows that the 95 million consists mostly of people who are retired, students, stay-at-home parents or disabled.
 
It's not an "abysmal" number. It's a fallacious number. As the WaPo Fact Checkers reported:
It's a phony number. Why? The link goes on:

Not MSM, but pretty certain this is accurate, and accounts for at least a few percentage points. Amazing how the number of disability claims are inversely proportional to the rate of employment.

Is Congress Enabling The 'Disabling' Of America? Zero Hedge

Very sharp rise in 2009-12.

IMG_0004.jpg

The problem here is that once people go on disability, they don't go off...<1%. These numbers underscore why unemployment figures are so controversial.
 
Last edited:
94 million were unemployed. It's not discredited. It's not accepted by Leftists, but that's different, as Leftists do not like the truth.
Unemployed is defined as "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."

There were approximately 7.2 million people who met that definition for March. Are you claiming that number is actually 94 million? What would be your source for that?

The real unemployment rate was double or triple what was put out, because the long-term unemployed were thrown off the roles.
Reread the definition. There is no time limit. It doesn't matter how long someone has been out of work, if they're looking, they're unemployed. And there are no "roles" (or "rolls," which is the word you probably wanted to use). Did you really think there was a list of everyone in the country and every person was tracked and their status updated?
 
Possible answers for the loss of identity/American conciousness:
1.) Religion: The United States used to be an overwhelmingly Christian country. By this, I dont mean so much that people followed the tenants of the religion but rather a "Christian identity" helped forge a shared worldview.

1950's gobbledeegook.

The reason the world is getting less religious is because humanity is evolving. Less and less of us are not so staggeringly ignorant that we actually turn to some dumb ass book written millennia ago that offers no more proof than a 'leap of faith'.

Humanity is better because of less Christianity...not from lack of that moronic religion.

BTW - ALL major religions are for the weak and/or the ignorant and/or the desperate. Religion is by a mile humanities dumbest major invention.

2.) Race: The United States in 1970 was close to about 90% white. The United States is now about 60% white and in about 20 years whites will be a minority. It goes without saying that Race is central to one's identity.

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.

Race is NOT central to one's identity. It IS apparently in your little, race-based, 1950's world. But it is not in the real world. People 's identities are almost NOTHING to do with the color of their skin. It is to do with who they are as people.
WHo you are, how you feel about things, what you enjoy to do, what you want to be and how you treat people are to do with your given personality from birth and - usually to a lesser extent - how you were raised/influenced.
It's not 'central'ly due to the amount of melanin in your skin... :roll:

So the central factor of my identity is that I am 'white'? Absolutely, nonsensical garbage. The central factor in my 'identity' is my personality which has almost nothing to do with the amount of melanin in my skin.

It is only galactically short-sighted people like you - who obviously judge people largely on their 'race' - who feel that way.

3.) Language: Today about 1 in 4 Americans do not speak English as a first Language. Language is crucial in establishing a shared venacular which is crucial to social cohesion.

Again, 1950's dinosaur nonsense.

Though I agree it is better if everyone can understand each other.

According to the CIA, only 58.1% of Canadians speak English as their primary language, and I guarantee you that Canadians are no more (if not far less) politically partisan than Americans.

So that throws that idea of yours right out the window.

Without shared Religion, Sprituality, Race, Ethnicity, or even Language will there be much to keep us together as time progresses?

:roll:

People 'keep together' due to common likes/dislikes, basic human decencies and inherent believes about what is good and what is not...not all those other human-created time-passers/wasters.

Humanity is what binds us together...not some nonsensical clubs that we have bound ourselves to.


And, btw, your entire premise of this thread is dead wrong, imo.

Want proof?

Look at the 1952 elections (the first after WW2)...over 64 years ago?

The percentage of Americans who voted for either major party was 99.5%.

It is almost impossible to get more partisan than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952


In 2016?

'Only' 94.3% voted for both major parties.

It's not a lot less...but it IS less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016


And it proves, imo, that America is not more partisan than ever...people just - for some odd reason - think it is.


Have a nice day.
 
Unemployed is defined as "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."

There were approximately 7.2 million people who met that definition for March. Are you claiming that number is actually 94 million? What would be your source for that?


Reread the definition. There is no time limit. It doesn't matter how long someone has been out of work, if they're looking, they're unemployed. And there are no "roles" (or "rolls," which is the word you probably wanted to use). Did you really think there was a list of everyone in the country and every person was tracked and their status updated?
The number isn't relevant to the faction of Leftists who don't like the truth.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02/95-million-american-workers-not-in-us-labor-force.html

The November jobs report looked pretty good on the surface except for one number that popped off the page: 95 million.

That's the number of Americans now counted as not in the labor force, a historic high that has confounded economists and policymakers. The total — 95.06 million to be more exact — has been rising consistently but surged by a gaudy 446,000 last month.
 
The number isn't relevant to the faction of Leftists who don't like the truth.

You can't handle the truth!

You didn't actually answer my questions....So, I say again:

Unemployed is defined as "Persons aged 16 years and older who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work, except for temporary illness, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."

There were approximately 7.2 million people who met that definition for March. Are you claiming that number is actually 94 million? What would be your source for that?

And you haven't addressed your false claim that "the long-term unemployed were thrown off the roles[sic]." Do you stand by that claim and what is your support for it?
 
Back
Top Bottom