Obama is Going to Win -- Sorry, just being honest

[TripletDaddy]

It is interesting that only point one sees in the headlines and quick newsbites is "unemployment drops from 8.3 to 8.1". Does most of the country hear or understand what a problem this really is? As Indy and '71 have noted, by far the main reason for the drop is that 368,000 people stopped looking for work. That means for every person who got a job last month, four others gave up. Because of population growth, at least 150,000 jobs need to be created each month, and yet last month the total created was 96,000, so we're falling further behind. And yet "8.3 to 8.1" is spun as a very positive development.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/07/news/economy/august-jobs-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

My FIL loves making the "everyone stopped looking for work" point. I guess it is an effort to focus on obamas failure to really "create" new jobs. I don't deny that it is probably accurate. However, whenever I ask him whether this also applies to a drop In unemployment under any other president, he never has a good answer. Havnt unemployment rates always failed to account for those that have given up?

[calicoug]

My FIL loves making the "everyone stopped looking for work" point. I guess it is an effort to focus on obamas failure to really "create" new jobs. I don't deny that it is probably accurate. However, whenever I ask him whether this also applies to a drop In unemployment under any other president, he never has a good answer. Havnt unemployment rates always failed to account for those that have given up?

Yes. And the biggest sector where jobs are disappearing is the public sector- where Republicans are refusing to permit funds for jobs.

[Levin]

Romney's "47% are dependent and don't pay income taxes" just sealed his fate.

Again, I'm sorry, but Romney's going to lose and Obama is going to win. It's not going to be as close as it could have been. Romney is running an inept campaign.

Think hard about the implications of Romney's off-the-cuff comments. It shows a candidate who is not serious and actually doesn't understand the tax code. Not to mention that he panders to big donors. And that he, in his wealthy position, has a fundamental lack of empathy, sympathy, and understanding for the working poor. They have the same values he espouses of hard work, individualism, the American dream. And they don't view themselves as dependent just because they don't pay income taxes. (And about half of those who don't pay income taxes are seniors, with much of the rest being poor families.) Not everyone can be private equity gods.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Romney now officially deserves to lose.

[byu71]

Romney's "47% are dependent and don't pay income taxes" just sealed his fate.

Again, I'm sorry, but Romney's going to lose and Obama is going to win. It's not going to be as close as it could have been. Romney is running an inept campaign.

Think hard about the implications of Romney's off-the-cuff comments. It shows a candidate who is not serious and actually doesn't understand the tax code. Not to mention that he panders to big donors. And that he, in his wealthy position, has a fundamental lack of empathy, sympathy, and understanding for the working poor. They have the same values he espouses of hard work, individualism, the American dream. And they don't view themselves as dependent just because they don't pay income taxes. (And about half of those who don't pay income taxes are seniors, with much of the rest being poor families.) Not everyone can be private equity gods.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Romney now officially deserves to lose.

If you are that confident, I have a way for you to make some easy money. I would say 3-1 odds are about right. Romney wins I get $1,500 and if Obama wins you get $500. We will have Lebowski the money to hold and he gets a 1% from the winner for him doing so.

Before accepting the bet, you might want to look at the polls. I don't want to take advantage for you. If Romney's campaign and his gaffe's have been so terrible, he should be behind by at least 10 points.

[Levin]

If you are that confident, I have a way for you to make some easy money. I would say 3-1 odds are about right. Romney wins I get $1,500 and if Obama wins you get $500. We will have Lebowski the money to hold and he gets a 1% from the winner for him doing so.

Before accepting the bet, you might want to look at the polls. I don't want to take advantage for you. If Romney's campaign and his gaffe's have been so terrible, he should be behind by at least 10 points.

I'll take a bet. But I'm not accepting your 3-1 odds. A bet has to be even money. $1,000 I pay you if Romney wins. $1,000 you pay me if Obama wins.

Let me know if you accept.

(I should get wifely approval before I do this, but as you say, this is easy money.)

[scottie]

Romney's "47% are dependent and don't pay income taxes" just sealed his fate.

Again, I'm sorry, but Romney's going to lose and Obama is going to win. It's not going to be as close as it could have been. Romney is running an inept campaign.

Think hard about the implications of Romney's off-the-cuff comments. It shows a candidate who is not serious and actually doesn't understand the tax code. Not to mention that he panders to big donors. And that he, in his wealthy position, has a fundamental lack of empathy, sympathy, and understanding for the working poor. They have the same values he espouses of hard work, individualism, the American dream. And they don't view themselves as dependent just because they don't pay income taxes. (And about half of those who don't pay income taxes are seniors, with much of the rest being poor families.) Not everyone can be private equity gods.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Romney now officially deserves to lose.

I think you're right.

[Donuthole]

I'll take a bet. But I'm not accepting your 3-1 odds. A bet has to be even money. $1,000 I pay you if Romney wins. $1,000 you pay me if Obama wins.

Let me know if you accept.

(I should get wifely approval before I do this, but as you say, this is easy money.)

Lol. You sure are confident.

[byu71]

I'll take a bet. But I'm not accepting your 3-1 odds. A bet has to be even money. $1,000 I pay you if Romney wins. $1,000 you pay me if Obama wins.

Let me know if you accept.

(I should get wifely approval before I do this, but as you say, this is easy money.)

Uh, your initial post had something like, Clinton rips Romney to "shreds". Also something about this thing is over.

Now your new post has "fate is sealed", "not going to be close" and "Romney is running an inept campaign". I guess you use exaggerations for effect, but don't really believe it.

"Even up" bet means you think it is a toss up just like I do. I never bet on toss ups.

[Levin]

Uh, your initial post had something like, Clinton rips Romney to "shreds". Also something about this thing is over.

Now your new post has "fate is sealed", "not going to be close" and "Romney is running an inept campaign". I guess you use exaggerations for effect, but don't really believe it.

"Even up" bet means you think it is a toss up just like I do. I never bet on toss ups.

So you'll bet where you're likely to lose 75% of the time, but you won't bet where you think you're likely to lose only half the time? That makes no sense.

[Donuthole]

So you'll bet where you're likely to lose 75% of the time, but you won't bet where you think you're likely to lose only half the time? That makes no sense.

Logic fail.

[byu71]

So you'll bet where you're likely to lose 75% of the time, but you won't bet where you think you're likely to lose only half the time? That makes no sense.

Uh, I think that is why you get odds. If I think my chances are 50/50 and taking that chance I get 3 times the reward if I am right, I think that makes sense.

Obama thinks like you do. He thinks people are willing to risk building a business, even if he gets 50% of the return if they succeed.

[il Padrino Ute]

Romney's "47% are dependent and don't pay income taxes" just sealed his fate.

Again, I'm sorry, but Romney's going to lose and Obama is going to win. It's not going to be as close as it could have been. Romney is running an inept campaign.

Think hard about the implications of Romney's off-the-cuff comments. It shows a candidate who is not serious and actually doesn't understand the tax code. Not to mention that he panders to big donors. And that he, in his wealthy position, has a fundamental lack of empathy, sympathy, and understanding for the working poor. They have the same values he espouses of hard work, individualism, the American dream. And they don't view themselves as dependent just because they don't pay income taxes. (And about half of those who don't pay income taxes are seniors, with much of the rest being poor families.) Not everyone can be private equity gods.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. Romney now officially deserves to lose.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/18/de...tire-strategy/

[Indy Coug]

So you'll bet where you're likely to lose 75% of the time, but you won't bet where you think you're likely to lose only half the time? That makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense. If you think it's less likely you will win, you want a bigger payoff to entice you to bet your money. It's amazing this little mathematical concept has eluded you as it has been actively used in Vegas, horse tracks and Wall Street for decades, nay, centuries now.

[byu71]

Of course it makes sense. If you think it's less likely you will win, you want a bigger payoff to entice you to bet your money. It's amazing this little mathematical concept has eluded you as it has been actively used in Vegas, horse tracks and Wall Street for decades, nay, centuries now.

Or if the guy you are betting against is way over confident. You take advantage of his poor judgement.

It is also another way to just get them to shut up.

[Levin]

I get the logic of odds, idiots. You guys in your responses are showing that you don't. Think about it a bit longer, and then if you still need help, I'll explain it. Read what '71 actually wrote.