And none of that methodology has changed. None of that methodology changed under the Obama administration.
Yikes. Another sell off.
- Thread starter WVUCOOPER
- Start date
A Conservative ? ...... must have missed that. I don’t care who you are, that would have been funny.
I linked you to the articles describing how they changed, who they counted and who they didn't, I can't do anything more than that Mule. Believe what you want.
Well, you don't actually take the loss until you sell. And you never really had the gain until you sell. Finally, I started putting extra $$ into stocks when the DJA was between 11 & 12K so even if I sold tomorrow, my take would still be more than double what I put in....
Probably dumb after historic levels of gerrymandering but I’ve got $250 that D’s take a House. You game?
Why only 250? What's wrong with double or nothing? Tell you what, if you can also predict why voters will prefer the Dems (ie: what will be the Democrat's mandate?) You're on!
For instance, I can say Republicans will retain the House and the Senate to protect the Trump tax cuts and make them permanent, build the wall and they're pissed off over the way Kavanaugh was treated. Now...how do you answer that using the Democrat's reasons for victory?
500.00 says you can't /won't answer.
You think it's going to happen too? Hilarious coming from a socialist like you.
The main players have been removed already. RR has been heeled. I'm not sure what will happen, but something will. If it looks good for midterms, which it's looking better by the day, it may not happen until after.
Dang that's not even Q level decoder and ya'll have issues.
- Rosenstein had went after Trump in the past, but now is contained? Agreeable? Cooperating? I don't know what to call it, but he's not deep state now.
- Nearly everyone else within the DOJ that had been in the effort to remove Trump has been removed themselves, or is cooperating in some fashion.
- The third IG report, the unredactions, the text messages all are cleared for release, but yet haven't. In the meantime, Republicans have pulled even w/ Dems on the generic ballot. They haven't needed the ammo of the releases in order to do so. They might let it play out at this point, or may drop a bomb when necessary. We'll see.
- The loonier the left behave, the better the generic ballot looks. So keep kicking Dems!
Reasoning is quite simple.
1) Trump himself. He has a 42% approval rating. Historically, that has spelled doom in midterm years. I'll grant that 23 seats is a ton of ground to make up (even though you are predicting that the GOP actually makes gains). The more I think about it I should actually be getting a handicap.
2) Healthcare. Still a big issue and lots there to defend for people.
3) Kavanaugh. You say American's are outraged at his "treatment" and will vote with him but polling suggested 55% of independents think claims weren't investigated enough....and then there's those pesky college-educated Women to contend with.
4) The Wall? Can't believe you raised that a vote getting issue outside of Trumps base. Hell, he doesnt even talk about it anymore outside of his campaign rallies and as red meat for Fox. Nobody is doubting he will win deep red. Its the purple people we are talking about here and 66 seats have been rated as in play for Ds. Up from in the 20s earlier in the year.
Where's my $500 for answering your question?
You missed the point of my challenge. I suggested those issues as something I'm offering are reasons Republicans will win the mid terms. I wanted your similar examples of the mandate voters will be sending if they put your Democrats in charge? You spent the post debunking the issues I suggested are winners for my side...the Republicans... and you never stated what Democrats are offering to win voter's trust that will represent their victory and mandate to govern?
It would be nice to hear that from you. However I understand the Democrats have no agenda they are offering voters. That's cool, it's also the reason I'm willing to double your offer to bet me on these upcoming midterms.
So, I have a Pay-Pal account. If you have one too great. To make this happen, we can each deposit 500.00 into each other's Pay Pal account post dated to November 7th to pay.
This way the money is already there on the table. Whoever wins the bet simply stops payment on the charge to their card. Winner then collects the loser's payment. Simple. If you welch, I'll dispute your cancelled charge and sue you in small claims court for non payment of services provided which will cost you even more. So don't bet me if you can't pay.
Are you ready to put your own money up instead of money confiscated from taxpayers in support of that winning Democrat agenda?
If so, I'll meet you on the Private message board with my pay-pal account info so you can deposit my 500.00 payout...and of course I will post a 500.00 payment to your pay pal account.
Let me know.
Last edited:
The bet is $250 on one house. If you were the one that needed 24 seats flipped I'd ask for $500 as well. If you need payment in advance PM me your paypal. I will simply take you at your word you'll pay me should I win.
Nope. You offered 250.00. I countered why only 250? I'm confident Democrats will lose BOTH houses and that's a bigger bet with bigger stakes. Typical of a Leftist trying to lower the bar.
Bet is 500.00...winner takes all if their side wins both Houses. That's my prediction and I'm willing to put my own hard earned money behind it. If you're confident on your side, you take this bet. If you are a Leftist whinny little panty waist looking for an easy way off the hook, you'll walk away from it.
So which is it? 500.00, or do you walk?
Like I said, D's have 24 seats to make up and I know the Senate is out of play. Take it or leave it.
So you asked to bet that GOP will not lose either house or senate. I take you up on the house and then I get accused of being a welcher, of having to be sued, and now I am wasting your time. Um, Okay. We're done here.
He backs out of every bet. No one is arguing the Senate and he tries to include that. :joy::joy::joy:
Good luck to you.
He knew what the bet was, he doesn't have the game to back it up. 250 ain't worth my time or money and neither is he.
I'll bet you all will be crying like unwanted babies November 7th. Take a walk chump.
Just go back and read my post, read my challenge and stop making excuses. It's obvious you don't want to bet so that's fine. Just don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you! Crawl rookie!
And just what was your offer if you lost the bet you punk ***? Oh yeah, you offered to leave the board for a year. Your fake *** will be gone anyway, what were you losing?
They cite that the reason the unemployment rate was low under Obama was the low LFPR. The LFPR is just as low today as it was then. Your linked articles simply explain why the economy was rotten when signs of improvement showed up. They do nothing to explain how that same analysis isn't valid today.
If you read them, they clearly explained the differences in criteria counting those who were unemployed or simply out of the work force. I agree it should be the same standard but clearly it was not Mule. If they were counting the unemployed the same way then as they are now the numbers during Obama's years would have been significantly higher.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I presented the data to you and how it was treated differently during Obama's term. Carry on.
You told me about statistics that have always been calculated, the U3 (commonly reported as the unemployment rate for ages), the U5 rate and the U6 rate. News flash, Trump's current numbers are U3, just like Obama's, W's, Clinton's, etc. The current U6 rate is 7.5%.
So you agree Obama's economy was every bit as strong as Trump's is now?
OK. You convinced me. The voters thought so too, that's why they gave Hillary her popular vote election win to continue Obama's stellar economic performance.
Last edited:
It's really difficult to discuss anything with you because you make up things that other people say. The economy in 2016 was better than 2014. The economy today is better than in 2016. That wasn't my point. My point was that the U6 numbers aren't what are reported as unemployment now despite your claim that the methodology changed under Obama. It didn't. Unemployment as commonly referred to is and has been the U3 number.
You still never answered how the LFPR is the same today as it was in Obama's last 4 years, but now there are more jobs than people, a claim you made.