4.6% unemployment rate

[Faun]

Why? It's a meaningless figure in terms of the health of the job market as it reflects demographics.

It was lower than it is now in the early 60's. It went up then because the baby boomer generation began turning 18 and entering the labor force. Now they're turning 62 and leaving the labor force.

Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.

You're fucking deranged. There's only 7.4 million people out of work now who are looking for a job. WTF do you get "tens of millions from?"

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Great, you follow up your last deranged post with another.

I didn't deny there are any folks who gave up looking within the group of those not in the labor force... I am pointing out the vast majority of those not in the labor force choose to not work. For a wide variety of reasons, some 95% of those not in the labor force neither look for work nor want to work. Citing 95 million not working, when nearly all of them don't want to work, as though it somehow indicates either a bad economy or an unhealthy job market, is just the sort of idiocy rightwingnuts spout.

Want proof of that...? Watch how the right does a 180 on their complaints about the labor force participation rate when Trump assumes office and the not in labor force continues to grow as it has for decades now and as the labor force participation rate continues to drop as it has done for about 16 years now.

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is the reason the disastrous Obama economy that has caused the horrific record low labor participation numbers. Liberal morons can't understand "why didn't mellenials come out?" Because Obama lied to them as well!

53 Percent Of All Young College Graduates In America Are Either Unemployed Or Underemployed

Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree

You keep posting discredited material, Roudy girl. Also learn to spell. You remind me of etherion and others.

 

[eflatminor]

Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.

You're fucking deranged. There's only 7.4 million people out of work now who are looking for a job. WTF do you get "tens of millions from?"

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Great, you follow up your last deranged post with another.

I didn't deny there are any folks who gave up looking within the group of those not in the labor force... I am pointing out the vast majority of those not in the labor force choose to not work. For a wide variety of reasons, some 95% of those not in the labor force neither look for work nor want to work. Citing 95 million not working, when nearly all of them don't want to work, as though it somehow indicates either a bad economy or an unhealthy job market, is just the sort of idiocy rightwingnuts spout.

Want proof of that...? Watch how the right does a 180 on their complaints about the labor force participation rate when Trump assumes office and the not in labor force continues to grow as it has for decades now and as the labor force participation rate continues to drop as it has done for about 16 years now.

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

 

[Faun]

You're fucking deranged. There's only 7.4 million people out of work now who are looking for a job. WTF do you get "tens of millions from?"

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Great, you follow up your last deranged post with another.

I didn't deny there are any folks who gave up looking within the group of those not in the labor force... I am pointing out the vast majority of those not in the labor force choose to not work. For a wide variety of reasons, some 95% of those not in the labor force neither look for work nor want to work. Citing 95 million not working, when nearly all of them don't want to work, as though it somehow indicates either a bad economy or an unhealthy job market, is just the sort of idiocy rightwingnuts spout.

Want proof of that...? Watch how the right does a 180 on their complaints about the labor force participation rate when Trump assumes office and the not in labor force continues to grow as it has for decades now and as the labor force participation rate continues to drop as it has done for about 16 years now.

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

Interesting to whom? Thanks for wasting my time with that article which is 2 years old and doesn't say what percentage of those not in the labor force are in that group because they gave up looking. Nor does it say how long they were out of work.

You don't want me to call you names but then you post an article like that which doesn't address your claims...

• Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  
• I argue the high number is also an indication of:
  1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

 

[eflatminor]

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Great, you follow up your last deranged post with another.

I didn't deny there are any folks who gave up looking within the group of those not in the labor force... I am pointing out the vast majority of those not in the labor force choose to not work. For a wide variety of reasons, some 95% of those not in the labor force neither look for work nor want to work. Citing 95 million not working, when nearly all of them don't want to work, as though it somehow indicates either a bad economy or an unhealthy job market, is just the sort of idiocy rightwingnuts spout.

Want proof of that...? Watch how the right does a 180 on their complaints about the labor force participation rate when Trump assumes office and the not in labor force continues to grow as it has for decades now and as the labor force participation rate continues to drop as it has done for about 16 years now.

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

Interesting to whom? Thanks for wasting my time with that article which is 2 years old and doesn't say what percentage of those not in the labor force are in that group because they gave up looking. Nor does it say how long they were out of work.

You don't want me to call you names but then you post an article like that which doesn't address your claims...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

You are free to deny logic and reason. The link supports your position.

This leads me to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and nasty.

Good luck with that.

 

[Faun]

Great, you follow up your last deranged post with another.

I didn't deny there are any folks who gave up looking within the group of those not in the labor force... I am pointing out the vast majority of those not in the labor force choose to not work. For a wide variety of reasons, some 95% of those not in the labor force neither look for work nor want to work. Citing 95 million not working, when nearly all of them don't want to work, as though it somehow indicates either a bad economy or an unhealthy job market, is just the sort of idiocy rightwingnuts spout.

Want proof of that...? Watch how the right does a 180 on their complaints about the labor force participation rate when Trump assumes office and the not in labor force continues to grow as it has for decades now and as the labor force participation rate continues to drop as it has done for about 16 years now.

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

Interesting to whom? Thanks for wasting my time with that article which is 2 years old and doesn't say what percentage of those not in the labor force are in that group because they gave up looking. Nor does it say how long they were out of work.

You don't want me to call you names but then you post an article like that which doesn't address your claims...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

You are free to deny logic and reason. The link supports your position.

This leads me to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and nasty.

Good luck with that.

Who needs good luck when dealing with someone who can't prove their claims?

You said...

• Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
• I argue the high number is also an indication of:
  1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

...either you can prove that or you prove my initial inclination that you're deranged.

No good luck needed with that.

 

[eflatminor]

To your second paragraph first, I did not vote Trump and I sure as hell will not reverse my thoughts on the issue because of him.

I acknowledge your point that demographic shifts drive the participation rate, but I also see it as a measure of two things, both very important to me. I argue the high number is also an indication of:

1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;
2. The dole or similar government handouts, which is also increasing.

It is for these reasons I find the number concerning.

Clearly, not a deranged thought, so let's both stop with the name calling please.

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

Interesting to whom? Thanks for wasting my time with that article which is 2 years old and doesn't say what percentage of those not in the labor force are in that group because they gave up looking. Nor does it say how long they were out of work.

You don't want me to call you names but then you post an article like that which doesn't address your claims...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

You are free to deny logic and reason. The link supports your position.

This leads me to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and nasty.

Good luck with that.

Who needs good luck when dealing with someone who can't prove their claims?

You said...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

...either you can prove that or you prove my initial inclination that you're deranged.

No good luck needed with that.

Thanks for making my point.

Ignoring the troll

 

[Roudy]

What you're tasting is liberal propaganda, from those who aren't even waiting for the guy to be sworn in before they continue with the same intolerance, lies and garbage that they spread before the election.

What will you say when dumps starts building in Taiwan ???

What's wrong with that? Mc Donald's has franchises all over the world.

Do you know what CONFLICT of INTEREST is??

So he can't talk to any nation that his has real estate in? Ha ha ha. Hilarious. That's already been voted on Nov. 8. People knew he had holdings all over the world. Personally I don't see why he should even seperate himself. Americans knew who he was.

Otherwise we will always get corrupt politician losers like Obama and Clinton.

Every move he makes every bowel movement will be scrutinized He deserves no less

Oh I have no doubt that liberals will even scrutinize Trump's bowel movements. Considering all the shit they enjoyed eating on Nov. 8. It seems they want more, and knowing Trump, he will gladly oblige.

 

[Indeependent]

This is the reason the disastrous Obama economy that has caused the horrific record low labor participation numbers. Liberal morons can't understand "why didn't mellenials come out?" Because Obama lied to them as well!

53 Percent Of All Young College Graduates In America Are Either Unemployed Or Underemployed

Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree

You keep posting discredited material, Roudy girl. Also learn to spell. You remind me of etherion and others.

Coming from the comfortably retired JackeyAss.

 

[eddiew37]

What will you say when dumps starts building in Taiwan ???

What's wrong with that? Mc Donald's has franchises all over the world.

Do you know what CONFLICT of INTEREST is??

So he can't talk to any nation that his has real estate in? Ha ha ha. Hilarious. That's already been voted on Nov. 8. People knew he had holdings all over the world. Personally I don't see why he should even seperate himself. Americans knew who he was.

Otherwise we will always get corrupt politician losers like Obama and Clinton.

Every move he makes every bowel movement will be scrutinized He deserves no less

Oh I have no doubt that liberals will even scrutinize Trump's bowel movements. Considering all the shit they enjoyed eating on Nov. 8. It seems they want more, and knowing Trump, he will gladly oblige.

We'll be on you like white on rice

 

[eddiew37]

What will you say when dumps starts building in Taiwan ???

What's wrong with that? Mc Donald's has franchises all over the world.

Do you know what CONFLICT of INTEREST is??

So he can't talk to any nation that his has real estate in? Ha ha ha. Hilarious. That's already been voted on Nov. 8. People knew he had holdings all over the world. Personally I don't see why he should even seperate himself. Americans knew who he was.

Otherwise we will always get corrupt politician losers like Obama and Clinton.

Every move he makes every bowel movement will be scrutinized He deserves no less

Oh I have no doubt that liberals will even scrutinize Trump's bowel movements. Considering all the shit they enjoyed eating on Nov. 8. It seems they want more, and knowing Trump, he will gladly oblige.

For dump it'll be like a colonoscopy every week

 

[Roudy]

This is the reason the disastrous Obama economy that has caused the horrific record low labor participation numbers. Liberal morons can't understand "why didn't mellenials come out?" Because Obama lied to them as well!

53 Percent Of All Young College Graduates In America Are Either Unemployed Or Underemployed

Why Sally can’t get a good job with her college degree

You keep posting discredited material, Roudy girl. Also learn to spell. You remind me of etherion and others.

Who discredited it? You? LOL.

College graduates are having a hard time finding jobs. Many of them are coming back and staying home with their parents. That is a fact, Jake.

 

[edthecynic]

the number of people who have lost their jobs and stopped looking is also the highest in 40 years. Therefore the recent "unemployment numbers" are meaningless.

Bullshit!

When Bush left there were 734,000 workers who had given up looking and there are 591,000 now, hardly a 40 year record!!!!!

 

[edthecynic]

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Hey, if the Russians say it, it MUST be true as Tramp knows they NEVER lie, unlike Tramp himself!

Doesn't make it untrue. Lots of credible sources back up that number. Just because your collectivist oriented news orgs choose to not report on something, it doesn't me the issue doesn't exist.

NO "credible" source backs your Russian lie that 1/3 of the labor force have given up looking for work.

 

[eddiew37]

No, you're confused. The labor participation rate includes those that have given up looking or taken part time jobs that don't count as full employment.

33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978. The number of Americans aged 16 and older not participating in the labor force hit 92,898,000 in February, tying December's record, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).Mar 7, 2015
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978 - RT.com
33% of Americans out of workforce, highest rate since 1978

Hey, if the Russians say it, it MUST be true as Tramp knows they NEVER lie, unlike Tramp himself!

Doesn't make it untrue. Lots of credible sources back up that number. Just because your collectivist oriented news orgs choose to not report on something, it doesn't me the issue doesn't exist.

NO "credible" source backs your Russian lie that 1/3 of the labor force have given up looking for work.

It's in the book ...The repub handbook of bs

 

[Faun]

Don't argue it... prove it. Prove a high number can't find work and gave up looking...

Of course, plenty of other sources cite the economy as a contributing factor, and logially, it makes sense to me, but you're right about the data. An interesting post at Cato calling for just that:

Getting back to Work

Interesting to whom? Thanks for wasting my time with that article which is 2 years old and doesn't say what percentage of those not in the labor force are in that group because they gave up looking. Nor does it say how long they were out of work.

You don't want me to call you names but then you post an article like that which doesn't address your claims...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

You are free to deny logic and reason. The link supports your position.

This leads me to believe you are being deliberately obtuse and nasty.

Good luck with that.

Who needs good luck when dealing with someone who can't prove their claims?

You said...

• 
  
  
  • Tell that to the tens of millions unable to find steady work who now live on the dole.
  • I argue the high number is also an indication of:
    1. An overall crappy economy where people look so long for a job, they give up, thereby relying on;

...either you can prove that or you prove my initial inclination that you're deranged.

No good luck needed with that.

Thanks for making my point.

Ignoring the troll

If you made your point, that only means your point is you like to post shit based on your deranged hallucinations that you a) can't prove; and b) run away from folks who challenge you to prove your baseless claims; and c) claim to ignore them while calling them names so you don't have to prove your baseless claims to show they're not rooted in delusions.

Thanks sport, for confirming what I already knew.

 

[danielpalos]

how does that work for the unemployed and homeless?

Your comment, daniel, is immaterial to the facts of life: get an education is the answer to many of them.

Start a thread about unemployed and homeless, please.

yet, it is You who seems to claim, capital is immaterial under any form of Capitalism.

You fucking goofball. Where have I ever said anything of the sort. You listen to the voices in your head, daniel, and that is why you end up looking so silly.

I have a sense of humor now. I actually enjoy the right wing, having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.

What objection do you have to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis, to correct for Capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment of resources?

Start a thread on it, and I will participate it. Your ? does not belong in this thread.

You have nothing but fallacy, why should I waste my time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comment, daniel, is immaterial to the facts of life: get an education is the answer to many of them.

Start a thread about unemployed and homeless, please.

yet, it is You who seems to claim, capital is immaterial under any form of Capitalism.

You fucking goofball. Where have I ever said anything of the sort. You listen to the voices in your head, daniel, and that is why you end up looking so silly.

I have a sense of humor now. I actually enjoy the right wing, having nothing but fallacy for their Cause.

What objection do you have to unemployment compensation on an at-will basis, to correct for Capitalism's laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment of resources?

Start a thread on it, and I will participate it. Your ? does not belong in this thread.

You have nothing but fallacy, why should I waste my time.

Says DanielFallacy. Your ? is immaterial to the discussion on unemployment in this thread, so it is a deflection.

 

[AntonToo]

Can we take out 10 million handicapped too?
How about 12 million stay at home moms?
How about students between 16-24?
How about children under 16?

Take all those out and you end up with around 8 million not in the workforce who want to be

many handicapped are employed, students and moms have part time jobs. I had a part time job at 14, have you ever had a job?

And those that aren't are out of the workforce

No reason for you to force them back in

Yup, the record 95 million out of work is all because of record retired, handicapped, or people under 16.

Liberal logic.

Well, none of it is people under 16. The survey only includes age 15 and older and only 16 and older data are published. But not in the labor force includes 24,147,000 disabled, 26,108,000 age 65+ who are not disabled, and 14,998,000 students age 16-24.

So that's 65,243,000 just from those three. There are younger retired, older students, stay home spouses, independently wealthy, and others who don't want or don't need a job, or can't work. There are less than half a million who have "given up."


Sources: Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
A-16. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 to 24 years of age by school enrollment, age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and educational attainment

So therefore, under Obama, the labor participation force is the lowest it's been in the last 40 years. Meaning the number of people who have lost their jobs and stopped looking is also the highest in 40 years. Therefore the recent "unemployment numbers" are meaningless.

U6 first and foremost answers the question - HOW TOUGH IT IS TO FIND A JOB?

It is relatively easy to find a job nowadays and there are record number of job openings

Income has jumped back up as well:

All of these are consistent signs of solid job market for Americans.

Conservatives are down to their last straw grasping with LFPR that was well predicted to fall through 2030 based on demographics 20 years ago, well before anyone has heard of Obama and Great Recession.

 

[Redfish]

Yup, the record 95 million out of work is all because of record retired, handicapped, or people under 16.

Liberal logic.

Well, none of it is people under 16. The survey only includes age 15 and older and only 16 and older data are published. But not in the labor force includes 24,147,000 disabled, 26,108,000 age 65+ who are not disabled, and 14,998,000 students age 16-24.

So that's 65,243,000 just from those three. There are younger retired, older students, stay home spouses, independently wealthy, and others who don't want or don't need a job, or can't work. There are less than half a million who have "given up."


Sources: Table A-6. Employment status of the civilian population by sex, age, and disability status, not seasonally adjusted
A-16. Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population 16 to 24 years of age by school enrollment, age, sex, race, Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and educational attainment

So therefore, under Obama, the labor participation force is the lowest it's been in the last 40 years. Meaning the number of people who have lost their jobs and stopped looking is also the highest in 40 years. Therefore the "unemployment numbers" are meaningless.

The same numbers you feel so free bandying about will be used when dump is presidunce too

Newsflash: Trump isn't president yet. You can hold your hissyfits, leftist propaganda and lies until Jan 20, 2017.

We're just giving you a small taste of what's coming down when he takes the oath What you guys did to Obama will seem like a walk in the park

Bullshit. We gave Obama a chance to prove himself. He failed. He had the perfect opportunity to heal the country and bring us back together, but instead he got us farther apart and more divided than ever. He increased racial unrest "the Cambridge police acted stupidly" "if I had a son he would look like Trayvon" "the USA is not a Christian nation"

He let his radical leftist agenda and hatred of the USA drive everything he did, and he failed in every was a president can fail.

The vote in November was not just a rejection of Hillary, it was a rejection of Obama, liberalism, and democrats. Until you on the left realize that, the dem party will never win anything again. Look what you fools have done since the election: put the idiot Pelosi back in charge and are looking at making a radical muslim chairman of the DNC. Amazingly stupid.