You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
If you can articulate a thought out argument why any Democrat would win against McCain, I'd like to hear it.
Haven't we already covered that several times?:haha:
The economy is in the fucking toilet. Blank checks being used for unnecessary war. Spending at an all time high. Dollar losing value. An unsustainable debt. Massive trade deficits. Biggest government expansion in history.
A republican administration is the cause of this.
McCain=republican(well, in name anyways).
republican=more of the same.
Get it?
The republicans were losing this election regardless of who was nominated. The 08 election is about the Bush failure, and I hate to break it to you, but the republicans aren't being rewarded for that failure.
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
, plus who will be the VP's before deciding on my general election vote. As Randall Flagg said though, :
I do think the VP's will play an important part in the general election. I don't think there will be a Clinton/Obama, Obama/CLinton ticket. Nor should there be. I think Clintons better off with maybe Joe Biden or possibly Wesley Clark would be a good choice & Obama better off with Biden or Edwards or Dean. Maybe Clark as well. He'd be a great choice as VP, along with Biden IMHO.
I saw on MSNBC this morning talk that Huckabee might run a clean race against McCain, if needed drop out because he could possibly be a VP nominee. I dunno if that'd be a good ticket at all. 2 different extreme's would avoid the middle of the road GOP.
The biggest problem for Hillary vs McCain is if she tries to hard to fight back & play dirty etc.. Obama does an excellent job not getting involved, dismissing it as nothing but a low blow, and moving on. Especially in debates. Clinton not so much but would benefit from it.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
Randall Flagg wrote:If you can articulate a thought out argument why any Democrat would win against McCain, I'd like to hear it.
Haven't we already covered that several times?:haha:
The economy is in the fucking toilet. Blank checks being used for unnecessary war. Spending at an all time high. Dollar losing value. An unsustainable debt. Massive trade deficits. Biggest government expansion in history.
A republican administration is the cause of this.
McCain=republican(well, in name anyways).
republican=more of the same.
Get it?
The republicans were losing this election regardless of who was nominated. The 08 election is about the Bush failure, and I hate to break it to you, but the republicans aren't being rewarded for that failure.
I truly don't think you get it. You have yet to explain how electing a Democrat will fix the economy. It's not as if they'll change current fiscal policy. They'll continue to tax and spend. Hillary or Obama will not be getting us out of Iraq any time soon. That is the simple reality and you need to accept that. They will being to implement their social plans which will jack up the budget trillions more. You can delude yourself into thinking that only the extremely wealthy will pay for this, but you'd be mistaken. There is no such thing as a free lunch and we're all gonna have to pay for the "change" Democrats want. Match that with the fact that gas ain't going down any time soon and I fail to see how the economy will be magically better. The only way to assist the economy, which isn't as bad as you and others want to believe it is, is to cut spending and apply a tax to the wealthy that is proportional to what the middle class pays. I believe if you follow the current stimulus plan, we'll have a surplus in 4 or 5 years. If we elect a fiscal conservative, the economy will boom. Electing Hillary or Obama will be more of the same with wreckless spending.
In the end rhetoric and feel good speeches have no affect on reality.
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
I truly don't think you get it.
You need to leave the fucking attitude at the door when you log in here. I like debating these issues with you as you are obviously intelligent, but stop talking down to people. I think you can get your point across without using those tactics.
I never said Obama or Hillary is our savior. All these candidates suck and I am not happy to vote for ANY of them. When I look at the three major players, the democrats have the best to offer(which is sad in itself). Yes they will spend without end, but as already mentioned and you clearly know, they will find the money to spend. The current republicans just spend like we have unlimited money.
I also don't think we'll see an immediate pullout in Iraq. We are obviously there for awhile no matter who wins.
Yes, they will tax and spend. Thats how people with brains get money to spend on bullshit programs. Republicans spend more yet don't care to get that money to spend. Just add it to our massive debt. So the rich get richer while the country sinks and its currency nosedives.
Flagg, there isn't a fiscal conservative in this race. Reagan used the "trickle down" plan, but he also implemented other things which kept the country booming. These guys don't do that.
I do agree that MASSIVE spending cuts are in order no matter who wins. Taxes do have to go up as well. Doesn't have to be a large margin, but it has to go up whether people want it to or not. When a dem or republican wants to increase spending for whatever program they are salivating over, a tax increase(maybe a sales tax) needs to happen to try and get these deficits under control.
No such thing as a free lunch? The Bush presidency has been nothing but a free lunch, but I get your point.
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
They'll continue to tax and spend. Hillary or Obama will not be getting us out of Iraq any time soon. That is the simple reality and you need to accept that. They will being to implement their social plans which will jack of the budget trillions more. You can delude yourself into thinking that only the extremely wealthy will pay for this, but you'd be mistaken. There is no such thing as a free lunch and we're all gonna have to pay for the "change" Democrats want. Match that with the fact that gas ain't going down any time soon and I fail to see how the economy will be magically better. The only way to assist the economy, which isn't as bad as you and others want to believe it is, is to cut spending and apply a tax to the wealthy that is proportional to what the middle class pays. I believe if you follow the current stimulus plan, we'll have a surplus in 4 or 5 years. If we elect a fiscal conservative, the economy will boom. Electing Hillary or Obama will be more of the same with wreckless spending.
In the end rhetoric and feel good speeches have no affect on reality.
au contraire, that's a myth. Bill Clinton balanced the budget, George Bush fucked it up. Seriously. As for a free lunch, pull us outta Iraq in 2 years, & spend the enormous amount of money elsewhere. I've found 2 unbiased references (search for about 4 to find a nonbiased, national debt chart) that support this, the Dow Jones stock market history (where alot of middle class invest & have their 401k retirement in) and the national debt chart, check it out until CLintons 90's years, then it skyrockets as soon as Bush takes office. Again, the republican belief is give tax breaks to the rich, in theory they spend more, which creates more jobs (retail, sales marketing). That's the theory, but it really doesn't work. Clinton gave tax breaks directly to the middle class, and assistance with college loans, financial aid, etc. It's 2 different economic philosophies, you choose which one you want to support. But to blatantly say the Dems spend is way off base, and similar to Bush calling Kerry a "Flip-flopper" a stupid name calling tactic that catches on with the public.
Dow Jones - Stagnant under Bush: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my
Nasdaq: which measures more hi-tech funds: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EIXIC&t=my
National Debt - Increases under Bush (and Reagan, although the sstock market took off under his 2nd term): http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx … roup_Id=32
And this tax rebate/stimulus package will end up being nothing more than a blip on the radar. Same way it did in 2001 or 02. There will not be any benefits 4-5 years down the line from it. . Granted, Bill Clinton had the benefit of the internet boom, but he rode the coattails of it, and didn't interfere with the explosion of it by trying to institute taxes and allowing middle class to invest more in it. No matter what, the 90's will go down as great economic times for the US (Economically, probably better than the 80's). You can say the dot com bust hurt Bush from the start, but Bush certainly is not leaving his follower in a good position either.
Bill Clinton: Little foreign wartime, balanced budget, good economic times
W. Bush : 6+ year war caused by invading another country, trillions spent, stagnant economy.
Hmmmmmm, I don't see what's hard to get.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
I'm not talking down to you and if that is how I was perceived, I apologize. I'm simply trying to figure out how you believe electing Hillary or Obama will correct the rampant spending that is hurting the economy. Ecspecially when they will be forced to spend more than Bush ever has with their policies.
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
Ecspecially when they will be forced to spend more than Bush ever has with their policies.
I think THIS is the part we disagree with. You are making these vague statements as if they are facts, which they are not. They are your assumptions, or predictions. But certainly NOT facts. It'd be like Dem supporters here saying McCain WILL keep us in Iraq for 4-8 more years, thousands more soldiers killed AND spend Trillions more. Isn't neccesarily true, or a fact. But if McCain said this, do you honestly beleive he would win the general election?!
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
Right, Bush's presidency has been in a time of war where Clinton had no major conflicts or events during his presidency; it was pretty uneventful. You're comparing Apple's to oranges. I think you miss my point. I am as upset as anyone with Bush's fiscal policy. I hope McCain will return to fiscal conservatism as I believe it will help the economy and that I oppose social programs on a philosophical level. I'm not saying socialism can't work, that is afterall the economic policy of the Dems albeit watered down from certain models, but I have yet to see a nation propser under it for a long period of time. You want to take the money we're blowing in Iraq and spend it on something else. I simply want to finish the job in Iraq as quickly as possible and then return the money to the people to spend on what they want rather than have an elitist on either side determine what is best for them.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
Randall Flagg wrote:Ecspecially when they will be forced to spend more than Bush ever has with their policies.
I think THIS is the part we disagree with. You are making these vague statements as if they are facts, which they are not. They are your assumptions, or predictions. But certainly NOT facts. It'd be like Dem supporters here saying McCain WILL keep us in Iraq for 4-8 more years, thousands more soldiers killed AND spend Trillions more. Isn't neccesarily true, or a fact. But if McCain said this, do you honestly beleive he would win the general election?!
McCain has said that we will maintain a presence in the middle east much like we have in Europe and Asia. That doesn't mean we will be fighting in the streets of Baghdad 10 years from now. I suggest that none of my arguments are facts in whole or there'd be nothing to discuss. I simply state them based on the best information available and from my perspective. The Democrats will not get us out of Iraq any time soon; no one will. Because of this, they will have to continue to spend on the war and the additional Billions if not trillons on other things they want.
Re: Mitt's suspends campaign
I'm not talking down to you and if that is how I was perceived, I apologize. I'm simply trying to figure out how you believe electing Hillary or Obama will correct the rampant spending that is hurting the economy. Ecspecially when they will be forced to spend more than Bush ever has with their policies.
They wont correct the spending, but will increase taxes to pay for their programs. I'm not fond of tax increases, but its a necessary measure if you are going to have massive spending. Its REALLY necessary in times of recession. The only real tax increase on Reagan's watch happened during that mini recession we had in the middle of his first term. When a recession happened during Bush I's presidency, he raised taxes. The government needs money coming in instead of just going out.
Believe me, if we had a real conservative running I would vote for them regardless of what their stand on other issues are. This country has got to be fixed. I just don't see McCain advocating any real solutions to these problems we face. He wont even acknowledge how bad its getting, which means he is out of touch.
