You are not logged in. Please register or login.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

polluxlm wrote:

If there were 7 flips and she won 6 the odds could change quite a bit. Still very lucky though, and being Hillary, possibly suspicious. Because she has been involved in so much seedy crap already.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

misterID wrote:

If Trump wins he'll quit before his first term is over. Which will be an unmitigated disaster. The Republicans sabotaged Obama by not doing anything and blocking everything. They'll do the same to Trump. And Trump is corporate America. If you think he'll do a single thing he promises... Which is as vague as all hell, you're kidding yourself.

If Bernie gets the nom, Trump will win.

Had Hillary won in 08 she would not have blown all her power by doing Obamacare. She would have been more strategic, gaining small victories leading to the midterms and she would have gained more leverage in senate and congressional seats, and she would have destroyed any attempts liberals did where they sabotaged southern democrats who risked everything to get Obamacare passed. They were thanked by left wingers when they, along withmove on and think progress bankrupted them during their primaries where they ran unelectable liberals in conservative races. A kue that failed spectacularly. Had she won back then not only would we have had a better healthcare bill but a real immigration bill. Bernie is just another Nader, Perot and the like.

Republicans cannot run an economy. They can't. The ideology is a failure.

If Hilary doesn't get the nom, I'm voting for Bloomberg.

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:

What's scary is you seem to imply that democrats can run the economy. They can't. They can spend. They can tax to cover some of their spending. Bernie's goal is to make everyone poor.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for someone that can't even follow simple protocols to protect national security information. How can you trust that person to do anything right?

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:

Someone is always going to have more than someone else. Someone is going to be more educated. Someone is going to be better. Someone is going to make more. It has to be that way. You can't give everyone free education and expect them to come out the same. You can't give free health care and expect everyone to be healthy. First off none of its actually free, and people are all different. No amount of free anything is going to change that. There will be a revolution before people accept socialism.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

misterID wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

What's scary is you seem to imply that democrats can run the economy. They can't. They can spend. They can tax to cover some of their spending. Bernie's goal is to make everyone poor.

I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for someone that can't even follow simple protocols to protect national security information. How can you trust that person to do anything right?

Actually they have, buzz. Clinton and Obama are the ones who pulled us out of a recession republicans torpedoed us into. The only thing Obama had to do to be successful was not be a republican.

No one has clean hands. I don't care about emails. She's the best candidate.

Bernie will not win. It's not even an argument. He's Ralph Nader.

I'm not a democrat, BTW. Republicans are a dead party with ideals that have failed with every republican presidency since Regan.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

polluxlm wrote:

Doesn't look like either party knows how to run the country you ask me. Things keep getting worse.

polluxlm
 Rep: 221 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

polluxlm wrote:

buzzsaw
 Rep: 423 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

buzzsaw wrote:

Omg, no.  Just no. It's amazing how revisionist history takes over so quickly.

You know that economic indicators lag behind, right?  Things were getting better before Obama took office. He's taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. Whoever is next is going to pay the price for this Healthcare disaster.  You should have to have some basic understanding of how things actually work to vote. Idiots voting is hurting us all.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

ID, stick to GNR... Something you know something about. Obama may be the worst POTUS EVER. BIll Clinton was a good Pres however. He was a moderate. Not an extreme liberal. Clinton passed welfare reform, etc. that said the tech bubble burst under Clinton and Bush inherited a bad economy. Then the market crashed based off of the Democrats policy to make everyone a home owner, including people that can't afford a home. That was a democrat policy. Bush's admin tried to shut that down but was not successful. Barney Frank had too much power.

misterID
 Rep: 476 

Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread

misterID wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:

Omg, no.  Just no. It's amazing how revisionist history takes over so quickly.

You know that economic indicators lag behind, right?  Things were getting better before Obama took office. He's taking credit for things he had nothing to do with. Whoever is next is going to pay the price for this Healthcare disaster.  You should have to have some basic understanding of how things actually work to vote. Idiots voting is hurting us all.

Sorry, you're wrong. It's not revisionism, it's reality. I'm not even an Obama supporter, but denying reality and listening to people who tell you what you want to hear only helps what you want to think, which is the main goal and why I typically stay out of these threads.


ObamasNumbers-2015-Q2.png

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB