First democrat debate

[ivwshane]

Then combine that with the decline in the labor force participation rate.

Why? The U6 number includes everyone looking for a job and those who want more work.

But just for shits and giggles.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

I wonder what caused the spike in the participation rate? Isn't it odd that the hump spans roughly 60 years? It's also interesting that the participation rate is also the same as it was in the late 70's.

 

[MongGrel]

Do you want more? "ONLY" liberals, eh? Yes, I am an old angry white guy that live in a trailer full of confederate flags and I hate all minorities (from certain poster(s) in this forum accused me of , not you)

You sure come off that way a lot of the time.

But now I'm getting off topic, it's irrelevant.

 

[LegendKiller]

Why? The U6 number includes everyone looking for a job and those who want more work.

But just for shits and giggles.

http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet

I wonder what caused the spike in the participation rate? Isn't it odd that the hump spans roughly 60 years? It's also interesting that the participation rate is also the same as it was in the late 70's.

A portion includes boomers that retired early due to a lack of jobs, at least according to the Fed. Another portion includes people who went on disability rather than look for jobs.

 

[Subyman]

Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.

Tiny minds throw around quotes. :whiste:

 

[Sonikku]

The public polls from around the web seem to be arriving at a majority consensus that Sanders won.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/fbi-doj-draftkings-fanduel/

The media outlets in contrast are seemingly universally claiming Hillary won. :hmm:

 

[DCal430]

Anyone else notice how much more civilized this debate was than the republican freak shows.

 

[shady28]

The public polls from around the web seem to be arriving at a majority consensus that Sanders won.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/fbi-doj-draftkings-fanduel/

The media outlets in contrast are seemingly universally claiming Hillary won. :hmm:

Yep, I noticed that as well. Even the polls are still focusing on Bush vs Clinton. Establishment politics...

I think the only ones who have have conviction in their beliefs in this race is Sanders and Carson. That would be a true ideological showdown. I might even vote for Sanders if he ran against Bush or Trump. If Hillary runs though, I'll vote for whoever gets the Rep nomination.

What's interesting about the polls is that in a race of Hillary vs Carson, Carson has a wide lead (like 11%). But pit Hillary against Trump or Bush, and Hillary wins. I'd like to see what a poll about Carson vs Sanders says.

 

[bozack]

wrong as usual...rofl..hahaaa

still a pathetic 9m short from the other debate....rofl hahaaa

 

[glenn1]

That was the point. They complain about free tuition, paid family leave, etc. as socialism/handouts but roads and infrastructure are the same thing. Only the craziest of the crazy complain about roads, but it is just as crazy to complain about free tuition.

Yeah, because things like roads unambiguously benefit everyone in society and relatively equally, thus why they're called "public goods." Things like free tuition, paid family leave, etc. unambiguously do NO benefit everyone and relatively equally, they're not public goods but rather transfer payments to specific individuals that only they benefit from. You can make an argument that offering government-funded benefits to private individuals on a large scale creates a social benefit, but the burden is on you to prove that and demonstrate what benefit it creates for those who pay for it (beyond some abstract like "a better educated workforce", etc.). I have just as a legitimate claim to say it does not create a social benefit; as it's both unfair and unwise to ask some poor working stiff in the ghetto to work even harder to pay for some rich white guy's kid to go to college.

 

[LegendKiller]

Anyone else notice how much more civilized this debate was than the republican freak shows.

Yeah, because nobody wanted to attack hillary much. Why? Because they would be automatically ostracized from the party by wasserman-schultz. That's it.

The two debates had two different goals. The GOP debate was to make trump look as bad as possible. Then dnc debate was to make billery look as good as possible.

Anybody notice that Lawrence Lessig wasn't there. Why? Because being ostracized from the party wouldn't matter to him.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Lol. On my turret at work in have every bank on the street on speed dial. I can have any banker I want from any bank on the phone in 30mins or less, 24/7.

you have the biggest e-peen ever!

 

[LegendKiller]

you have the biggest e-peen ever!

Thanks!

 

[CitizenKain]

Anyone else notice how much more civilized this debate was than the republican freak shows.

That's because they are adults. While the republicans somehow let someone like Trump and Carson in.

 

[irishScott]

Found this rather interesting tidbit:

It's hardly conclusive evidence, but sadly I wouldn't be shocked if there was some link. We've seen worse corruption before. On a related not, it is strange that the media keeps saying Hillary clearly won, yet almost all the comments on social media I'm seeing are about how Bernie won. And apparently the polling says he won by a landslide.

 

[OutHouse]

^^ how much did Rothchild give her?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The public polls from around the web seem to be arriving at a majority consensus that Sanders won.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/fbi-doj-draftkings-fanduel/

The media outlets in contrast are seemingly universally claiming Hillary won. :hmm:

All of the Internet polls I've seen show a clear victory for Ron Paul.

 

[Hugo Drax]

Weird. Sanders looks like he won the pools yet the media reports Clinton won.

http://www.alternet.org/media/berni...-polls-so-why-media-saying-hillary-won-debate

As I say. BUSH III/CLINTON II 2016. It is in the works, and nothing anyone here says will change this fact.

 

[SMOGZINN]

it is strange that the media keeps saying Hillary clearly won, yet almost all the comments on social media I'm seeing are about how Bernie won.

That is the problem with this style of pre-negotiated debate, there is no real winner. These sorts of debates are more impromptu speaches than debate. The 'moderator' asks a question and then the politicians talk about anything they damn well please for nearly as long as they please. There is no real requirement that they answer the question, support their arguments, or even use arguments. They don’t actually rebut the others statements, but make statements of their own, which are most often than not only tangentially related to what the other person said. Politics long ago removed real debate, now we just get speeches.

So, when they say someone ‘won’ the debate all they really mean is that the media exposure helped their campaign.

 

[tweaker2]

Bernie Sanders' narrative is tapping into what has been steadily building among the working class folks' perspective on their declining quality of life, irrespective of party affiliation. He is looked upon as their solution to that problem.

Hillary Clinton is increasingly looked upon as being a part of the problem that Bernie Sanders is trying to solve.

And besides, even if Bernie loses the primary, his stated goal and reason for running was to pull Hillary to the left. That she has denounced Obama's trade agreement package signifies that Bernie has done a marvelous job of it. If for no other reason, his running has already served its purpose.

 

[LegendKiller]

All of the Internet polls I've seen show a clear victory for Ron Paul.

Now that really made me lol.

 

[dank69]

I just put one that was ONLY about the huge amnesty during the 80s from Reagan administration above. Stay tuned.

Here is another one. (#2)



A post that praised the Democrats that did the right thing ( against the repeal of Glass-Steagall) and bashed the Republicans because of their yes votes. (#3)



Another one about Reagan/Republican amnesty. (#4)


and numero cinco (#5)

Brosef, digging up posts that criticize the GOP for not being conservative enough is hurting your case, not helping it. By my count you have 1 post so far that qualifies: the one about Glass-Steagall. Can you include links to your posts so I can verify context if you plan to continue?

 

[dank69]

still a pathetic 9m short from the other debate....rofl hahaaa

The Kardashians pull good ratings, too.

 

[Svnla]

Brosef, digging up posts that criticize the GOP for not being conservative enough is hurting your case, not helping it. By my count you have 1 post so far that qualifies: the one about Glass-Steagall. Can you include links to your posts so I can verify context if you plan to continue?

Stop moving the goal post. I posted 5 posts that I criticized Republicans/conservatives as you requested ("if you can pull up 5 posts of yours criticizing only conservatives or Republicans"). Whether you think I am independent or not, I don't care. The facts shown that I had and will be critical both sides (D+R) when they are wrong.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

The public polls from around the web seem to be arriving at a majority consensus that Sanders won.
http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/fbi-doj-draftkings-fanduel/

The media outlets in contrast are seemingly universally claiming Hillary won. :hmm:

Ya because all of the people from reddit actively tried to go on every site and vote for sanders. It was the top post the night of the debate.

 

[dank69]

Stop moving the goal post. I posted 5 posts that I criticized Republicans/conservatives as you requested ("if you can pull up 5 posts of yours criticizing only conservatives or Republicans"). Whether you think I am independent or not, I don't care. The facts shown that I had and will be critical both sides (D+R) when they are wrong.

Dude, you are trying to prove you aren't a conservative...do you think posts where you criticize Ronnie for not being conservative enough accomplishes that goal?