Rank the Republican contenders by order of craziness.

punked · January 31, 2012

That 5s are rounded to the nearest even number? No. I think punked remembers just fine.

Thank you I am happy I was not the only who learned you have round up half the time and down the other half otherwise you have a round error in your numbers.

LonJowett · January 31, 2012

Yeah, but when Obama donated over 14% of his income to charity, Shady rounded it down to 1%. :lol:

jbg · January 31, 2012

The REAL clown show is painfully obvious by its absence.

Since there is no Democratic Primary, it is safe to come to the conclusion that all Democrats are happy with the Obama train wreck.

Not really. It's safe to assume that no Democrat wants to risk being in the doghouse if Obama wins. A same-party challenge to an incumbent is very rare. You have to go back to 1968 for the first such challenge I can think of after the establishment of the current party lineup. Eugene McCarthy lost to Lyndon Johnson in the primaries but by a small enough margin that Johnson stood down. The next such challenge was 1980 where Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter. Carter won the nomination, and lost office. But he was clearly damaged goods by then.

Other than that there are none that I can think of.

Shady · January 31, 2012

Yes I am sorry Shady I should have said, "Let's talk about the System Reagan established when his unemployment figures hit double digits in order to hid what his true unemployment rate was." Sorry about that Shady under the Reagan system unemployment is 8.5%.

I know, it's all Reagan's fault that Obama's economic policies have failed, and that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 8.5%. And it's all Reagan's fault for you deciding to round down. :rolleyes:

GostHacked · January 31, 2012

I know, it's all Reagan's fault that Obama's economic policies have failed, and that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 8.5%. And it's all Reagan's fault for you deciding to round down.

So when your man Romney gets in, and screws things up even more, I don't want to hear you say it's Obama's fault.

punked · January 31, 2012

I know, it's all Reagan's fault that Obama's economic policies have failed, and that the real unemployment rate is much higher than 8.5%. And it's all Reagan's fault for you deciding to round down.

Nope it is Reagan's fault that unemployment is under reported because he couldn't deal with having double digit unemployment figures. Which is fine but don't all gung ho about the guy who changed Right now unemployment is 8.5% and falling. Just remember at this point in the Reagan years unemployment was 8.3%.

Shady · January 31, 2012

Nope it is Reagan's fault that unemployment is under reported because he couldn't deal with having double digit unemployment figures.

Well, then it's Obama's fault that it hasn't changed.

Which is fine but don't all gung ho about the guy who changed Right now unemployment is 8.5% and falling. Just remember at this point in the Reagan years unemployment was 8.3%.

Yep, but at this point in the Reagan years, the economy was producing 500,000 - 700,000 jobs per month. Big difference.

waldo · January 31, 2012

Yep, but at this point in the Reagan years, the economy was producing 500,000 - 700,000 jobs per month. Big difference.

Obama's jobs record looks a lot like -- Ronald Reagan's

As Republicans gear up to run against President Obama's record for creating private-sector jobs, they may encounter an unexpected glitch: It looks a lot like Ronald Reagan's.Obama has presided over a loss of 1.6 million of the nation's 111 million private-company jobs since taking office, according to official statistics. But since employment hit post-recession lows in February 2010, companies have added 2.6 million jobs, beating the 2.4 million created between the bottom of the 1982 recession and this point in Reagan's first term. Joblessness then was 9.2%.

Shady · January 31, 2012

Obama's jobs record looks a lot like -- Ronald Reagan's

That's very clever Waldo, but like I said. At this point in the recovery, the Reagan economy was producing 500,000 per month. Sometimes even more, and that's without a trillion dollar stimulus package. Obama's current economy is producing 50,000 - 150,000 jobs per month. He celebrates monthly job totals that don't even keep up with population growth.

Also, I noticed you left this out of your link:

The trouble for Obama is that next year's outlook seems nothing like 1984.
The comparison to Reagan is more eye-catching, Prakken said. Reagan's 2.4 million new jobs from the bottom of the 1982 recession were achieved in a smaller economy.

Waldo's link

waldo · February 1, 2012

That's very clever Waldo, but like I said. At this point in the recovery, the Reagan economy was producing 500,000 per month.

the linked article is 2 months dated - Nov,2011... your numbers don't jive with the articles comparative measure. I note you haven't provided any substantiation on your numbers, on your claim. Again:

As Republicans gear up to run against President Obama's record for creating private-sector jobs, they may encounter an unexpected glitch: It looks a lot like Ronald Reagan's.Obama has presided over a loss of 1.6 million of the nation's 111 million private-company jobs since taking office, according to official statistics. But since employment hit post-recession lows in February 2010, companies have added 2.6 million jobs, beating the 2.4 million created between the bottom of the 1982 recession and this point in Reagan's first term. Joblessness then was 9.2%.

punked · February 1, 2012

Well, then it's Obama's fault that it hasn't changed.

Yep, but at this point in the Reagan years, the economy was producing 500,000 - 700,000 jobs per month. Big difference.

Yah and Obama's is right on track with Private sector jobs, the public sector cuts make the numbers look smaller Reagan loved those public sector jobs Shady.

Edited February 1, 2012 by punked

Shady · February 1, 2012

Yah and Obama's is right on track with Private sector jobs

Nope. It's quite the opposite. For the same period, Obama's averaged 41,000 jobs per month, Reagan averaged 285,000.

the public sector cuts make the numbers look smaller.

What public sector cuts? Not from the federal government. In fact, Obama's trillion dollar stimulus was all about public sector jobs.

Reagan loved those public sector jobs Shady

Yep, ask the air traffic controllers that! :lol:

punked · February 1, 2012

Nope. It's quite the opposite. For the same period, Obama's averaged 41,000 jobs per month, Reagan averaged 285,000.

What public sector cuts? Not from the federal government. In fact, Obama's trillion dollar stimulus was all about public sector jobs.

Yep, ask the air traffic controllers that!

Over the same period Obama's economy added very close to the same number of private sector jobs however there have been huge public sector loses. In November Shady the US added 206,000 PRIVATE sector jobs and where Reagan would have added in his presidency around 40-50,000 public sector jobs Obama lost that same amount. It is math Shady sorry buddy I know how much you love Public Sector hiring you know the Reagan model but I guess they can't afford those jobs.

Yukon Jack · February 1, 2012

After 563 replies to this topic, whose title was, obviously designed and created by a liberal, it is time to ask the question:

Why is the Democratic incumbent not any crazier than the Republican contenders?

Michael Hardner · February 1, 2012

After 563 replies to this topic, whose title was, obviously designed and created by a liberal, it is time to ask the question:

Why is the Democratic incumbent not any crazier than the Republican contenders?

Michelle Bachmann stated that she does not want America to be part of the international global economy.[170][171]

Herman Cain's campaign manager released a video in which he smokes a cigarette.

Rick Perry believes that a law banning consensual same-sex activity was 'appropriate'

Rick Santorum blamed liberalism and Boston (?) for Catholic sex abuse scandals

Newt Gingrich is quoted to have said of his first wife: "She's not young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of the President. And besides, she has cancer.