Republicans Own Detroit Bankruptcy

[Antares]

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

Yeah, I'm leaving it up.


Reagan: 43,903,230
Carter: 35,480,115
___________________

8,423,115

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980


Obama: 66,862,039
McCain: 58,319,442
___________________

8,542,597

President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times



Now, I'm no math major, but I know that 8,542,597 is larger than 8,423,115.


Dumbass.

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

 

[Pop23]

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

Yeah, I'm leaving it up.


Reagan: 43,903,230
Carter: 35,480,115
___________________

8,423,115

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980


Obama: 66,862,039
McCain: 58,319,442
___________________

8,542,597

President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times



Now, I'm no math major, but I know that 8,542,597 is larger than 8,423,115.


Dumbass.

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

Might I add that there was a third candidate that synth left out. John Anderson who took 5.7 million votes

Anderson was a Republican who lost to Reagan in the Primary's then ran in the General as an Independent

Not sure why Synth left that FACT out, but I'm guessing it was a face saving move to save this SILLY thread

 

[Antares]

Yeah, I'm leaving it up.


Reagan: 43,903,230
Carter: 35,480,115
___________________

8,423,115

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980


Obama: 66,862,039
McCain: 58,319,442
___________________

8,542,597

President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times



Now, I'm no math major, but I know that 8,542,597 is larger than 8,423,115.


Dumbass.

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

Might I add that there was a third candidate that synth left out. John Anderson who took 5.7 million votes

Anderson was a Republican who lost to Reagan in the Primary's then ran in the General as an Independent

Not sure why Synth left that FACT out, but I'm guessing it was a face saving move to save this SILLY thread

Because he is a partisan hack with no integrity.

 

[Synthaholic]

OK, you all have deflected long enough, and I am tired of proving you wrong.

Back to the OP:

If it was Obama's Economy after 2 years in office, why isn't it Snyder's Detroit after 2 years?

Were there efforts in DET to reduce the spending etc?? Did Obama reduce spending??

Obama was not handed a trillion+ deficit every year.. he did that all himself...

The ones currently in charge in DET are responsible for handling the bankruptcy procedures that they started... they are not responsible for the spending that got DET there... Obama is not responsible for spending that happened before his time either... but he doubled down on the bad practice, went with policy that was against helping business and employment, and made a bad situation worse... if Obama had cut spending, eliminated programs etc as a result of bad Bush spending and even though it was on the right path it did not keep from an inevitable bankruptcy, THEN it would be the same type of situation..

You are woefully, comically uninformed.

Obama has nearly cut the deficit in half.

And are you claiming that Bush left Obama a deficit of zero?

 

[Synthaholic]

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

 

[westwall]

OK, you all have deflected long enough, and I am tired of proving you wrong.

Back to the OP:

If it was Obama's Economy after 2 years in office, why isn't it Snyder's Detroit after 2 years?

Were there efforts in DET to reduce the spending etc?? Did Obama reduce spending??

Obama was not handed a trillion+ deficit every year.. he did that all himself...

The ones currently in charge in DET are responsible for handling the bankruptcy procedures that they started... they are not responsible for the spending that got DET there... Obama is not responsible for spending that happened before his time either... but he doubled down on the bad practice, went with policy that was against helping business and employment, and made a bad situation worse... if Obama had cut spending, eliminated programs etc as a result of bad Bush spending and even though it was on the right path it did not keep from an inevitable bankruptcy, THEN it would be the same type of situation..

You are woefully, comically uninformed.

Obama has nearly cut the deficit in half.

And are you claiming that Bush left Obama a deficit of zero?

If you believe that you are brain dead.

 

[Synthaholic]

Are you sure you want to leave up that post?
Tell ya what, I will give you a chance to take it down ti save yourself the embarrassment of the ridicule that is about to follow.
BTW,m Detroit is a piss pool and the democrats which have been running that city for 50 years OWN it.

Yeah, I'm leaving it up.


Reagan: 43,903,230
Carter: 35,480,115
___________________

8,423,115

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980


Obama: 66,862,039
McCain: 58,319,442
___________________

8,542,597

President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times



Now, I'm no math major, but I know that 8,542,597 is larger than 8,423,115.


Dumbass.

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

But we're not talking about electoral votes, are we, Hagitha?

 

[Synthaholic]

Were there efforts in DET to reduce the spending etc?? Did Obama reduce spending??

Obama was not handed a trillion+ deficit every year.. he did that all himself...

The ones currently in charge in DET are responsible for handling the bankruptcy procedures that they started... they are not responsible for the spending that got DET there... Obama is not responsible for spending that happened before his time either... but he doubled down on the bad practice, went with policy that was against helping business and employment, and made a bad situation worse... if Obama had cut spending, eliminated programs etc as a result of bad Bush spending and even though it was on the right path it did not keep from an inevitable bankruptcy, THEN it would be the same type of situation..

You are woefully, comically uninformed.

Obama has nearly cut the deficit in half.

And are you claiming that Bush left Obama a deficit of zero?

If you believe that you are brain dead.

Read it and weep, moron:

Federal Budget Deficit Is GOP?s Incredible Shrinking Issue - Pat Garofalo (usnews.com)

Bob Cesca: Repeat After Me: Obama Cut the Deficit and Slowed Spending to Lowest Level in 50 Years

How many more would you like, asshole?

 

[Antares]

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

I'm throwing the bullshit flag, this is pure projection.

 

[Antares]

Yeah, I'm leaving it up.


Reagan: 43,903,230
Carter: 35,480,115
___________________

8,423,115

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980


Obama: 66,862,039
McCain: 58,319,442
___________________

8,542,597

President Map - Election Results 2008 - The New York Times



Now, I'm no math major, but I know that 8,542,597 is larger than 8,423,115.


Dumbass.

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

But we're not talking about electoral votes, are we, Hagitha?

Intelligent people are...I mean that IS the way we elect Presidents...but I don't expect a grade school drop out to know that.

 

[Pop23]

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You tried to make a point while leaving out important information

You got called on it

Instead of admitting the omission you call names

Silly and sad

 

[TemplarKormac]

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You tried to make a point while leaving out important information

You got called on it

Instead of admitting the omission you call names

Silly and sad

Why don't we just stop commenting on his thread. Let him sautée in his own stupidity.

 

[Trajan]

Are you claiming that Kennedy didn't primary Carter?

Or are you claiming that the Democrats weren't divided?

Ted Kennedy has ZERO to do with Carter being trounced by Reagan. Carter alone bears that cross.
BTW, there was no way this country was going to have a drunken, philandering, disconnected, ultra wealthy New England liberal as president.
Carter...

In August 1980, Carter’s approval rating among Democrats was about equal to Obama’s current rating among Americans as a whole. That was due to Kennedy's challenge.

Carter was ahead until the last week or so, when, on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Carter abandoned campaigning that day, addressing the nation that night.


From Gallup:

trying to prove that Kennedy led to Carters loss, how again?

So to put a pin in this-

1980 reagan vs. carter

Popular vote 43,903,230 35,480,115 5,719,850
Percentage 50.8% 41.0% 6.6%


1976 carter vs. ford

Popular vote 40,831,881 39,148,634
Percentage 50.1% 48.0%


Carter got 4 million votes less than he did 4 years earlier, meanwhile, to connect to your strained corollary, Obama got 69,498,516 in 2008, in 2012, 65,899,660.

so, why did Carter drop 4 million votes and Obama drop 3.5 million? I can think of several reasons and a primary challenger means exactly- squat.

 

[Jarlaxle]

tell us some more you don't know about political history

Are you claiming that Kennedy didn't primary Carter?

Or are you claiming that the Democrats weren't divided?

Ted Kennedy has ZERO to do with Carter being trounced by Reagan. Carter alone bears that cross.
BTW, there was no way this country was going to have a drunken, philandering, disconnected, ultra wealthy New England liberal as president.
Carter...

They elected one, didn't they?

 

[RKMBrown]

Wrong. Dufus. Larger margin of victory between two events does not mean quantity of votes unless the number of votes in both events is the same. A measure or degree of difference between the two events must be normalized to be relevant. You think you proved something? ROFL All you proved is how stupid your posts are and how likely it is that everything you say is a play on words or an outright lie.

IOW you proved you are a liberal.

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You are a blatant liar you said and I quote:

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter. Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

 

[Synthaholic]

Reagan's 525 electoral votes (out of 538) is the highest total ever received by a presidential candidate. Mondale's 13 electoral votes is also the second-fewest ever received by a second-place candidate, second only to Alf Landon's 8 in 1936. In the national popular vote, Reagan received 58.8% to Mondale's 40.6%. No candidate since then has managed to equal or surpass Reagan's 1984 electoral result. Also, no post-1984 Republican candidate has managed to match or better Reagan's electoral performance in the Northeastern United States and in the Western United States.

Sorry kid, (489 was the tally against Carter) electoral votes is an annihilation.

But we're not talking about electoral votes, are we, Hagitha?

Intelligent people are...I mean that IS the way we elect Presidents...but I don't expect a grade school drop out to know that.

Thank you, Roo, for confirming AND calling Trajan and Redfish dumbasses!

(I made the font bigger and bolded it so you won't miss it. )

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/304460-republicans-own-detroit-bankruptcy-9.html#post7586897

landslides?

when all else fails, up your drip dude...

2008

Obama: 365
McCain: 173


2012

Obama: 332
Romney: 206


Yup - landslides.

You should know better by now than to challenge me on facts, sport.

do you have access to the popular vote? if so, please post those numbers. neither election was a landslide, 2 or 3 states skewed the EC numbers. If CA, OH, PA and NY were not winner take all the result might have been different.

​

 

[Synthaholic]

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You tried to make a point while leaving out important information

You got called on it

Instead of admitting the omission you call names

Silly and sad

Where did I say Obama is a superior leader to Washington?

C'mon, liar - back up your bullshit.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ted Kennedy has ZERO to do with Carter being trounced by Reagan. Carter alone bears that cross.
BTW, there was no way this country was going to have a drunken, philandering, disconnected, ultra wealthy New England liberal as president.
Carter...

In August 1980, Carter’s approval rating among Democrats was about equal to Obama’s current rating among Americans as a whole. That was due to Kennedy's challenge.

Carter was ahead until the last week or so, when, on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Carter abandoned campaigning that day, addressing the nation that night.


From Gallup:

trying to prove that Kennedy led to Carters loss, how again?

So to put a pin in this-

1980 reagan vs. carter

Popular vote 43,903,230 35,480,115 5,719,850
Percentage 50.8% 41.0% 6.6%


1976 carter vs. ford

Popular vote 40,831,881 39,148,634
Percentage 50.1% 48.0%


Carter got 4 million votes less than he did 4 years earlier, meanwhile, to connect to your strained corollary, Obama got 69,498,516 in 2008, in 2012, 65,899,660.

so, why did Carter drop 4 million votes and Obama drop 3.5 million? I can think of several reasons and a primary challenger means exactly- squat.

Hey Trajan - Roo just called you a dumbass.

And she's correct.

 

[Synthaholic]

Lets also examine the size of the population as a whole also along with registered voters. Sad news is that people actually have babies that increase the population base which in turn become voters

Lets take this to its logical conclusion. Obama got more total votes than George Washington, therefore Obama is a superior leader to Washington

No, this isn't a silly thread at all!

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You are a blatant liar you said and I quote:

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter. Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Obama DID beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Sorry you suck at math.

 

[RKMBrown]

Of course, I never said that. I said that he got more popular votes over McCain than Reagan did over Carter.

But you're just a liar - that's what you do.

You are a blatant liar you said and I quote:

Obama beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter. Therefore, Obama has won with a larger margin of victory - one of the largest in history!

Obama DID beat McCain with more votes than Reagan beat Carter.

Sorry you suck at math.

Sorry I'm dealing with someone with an IQ of 10. More votes is not the same as more popular votes. More votes and more popular votes are not the same as larger margin of victory. Look up margin of victory and come back to your thread when you have the balls to admit you were wrong.