Super Tuesday Party Thread in Which We Celebrate The Donald's Wins

[auditor0007]

Let's get ready to party!

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

 

[auditor0007]

Let's get ready to party!

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

The single largest detriment to the current economy is Obamacare. That too will be corrected under the Trump Presidency. Smaller government increases the revenue the citizen keeps in his pocket. A government employee is a tax payer liability. Yes Roald Reagan grew the military segment of the government. We had a 600 ship Navy. We bankrupted the Soviet Union and it had to burst apart. We have a wasteful government with an ever increasing national debt. We have a terrific trade imbalance which is what Donald Trump is bent upon addressing. Corporations are leaving our country and employment is suffering because of it. Small business startup are stymied because of so much regulation.

We have a wasteful government with an ever increasing national debt.

I wonder at what point this will be thought of as something worthy of attention.
I heard that paying the interest on the debt will be the governments third largest expenditure soon.

When will national debt get someone's attention.
Is $19 trillion not enough.Will $20 trillion do it? Maybe $21 trillion?

The number of the debt is not the real problem. The debt as a percentage of GDP is the problem. When it is close to or over 100%, it is a problem. Reduce it to 50%, and it's not a problem at all. The easiest way to reduce it is to grow the economy without drastically increasing spending. Cutting spending directly won't work and it just won't happen.

 

[Missourian]

For smarter right wingers, the Trump "phenomena" should be clear....Trump is basically destroying the GOP by handing over both the WH and senate to democrats, and leaving behind a severely split conservative bloc of voters. Let's just hope that democrats don't mess up this unique opportunity.

Bah, the Anybody but Trump faction will end up in exactly the same position as the Anybody but Romney coalition did...coalescing behind the nominee against the evil forces of the Democratic Nominee. I should know...I was a part of the ABR, and I ended up holding my nose and voting for him, just like I did McCain before that.

Watch the Anyone but Hillary association do the same come General election time, forming up rank and file behind Hillary.

 

[the_human_being]

Trump wins Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mass. so far

 

[SmokeALib]

I don't give a shit what you master economists say - 10 trillion when Bush left office - 19.3 trillion now. Boneheads.

 

[bripat9643]

Let's get ready to party!

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

 

[skye]

Trump will be giving his inauguration speech and people still won't believe it.

^^^^ exactly!


It's looking like another sweet night for Trump!!

 

[Stephanie]

Let's get ready to party!

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

where do you come up with yours? all you post is your Opinion on Reagan, Clinton and Bush. not one link to back it up. so look in a mirror before you call CONS stupid

 

[auditor0007]

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

 

[the_human_being]

Donald Trump, the businessman, is executing a textbook case of a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. It is beautiful.

 

[bripat9643]

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

the graph shows it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning of his term. That explains all the stupid statements you make. You can't even read a simple graph.

 

[auditor0007]

Yes sir, we are going to party tonight. Can't wait to see Trump as the nominee. This is going to destroy the Republican Party. Dems couldn't ask for a better scenario. Dem's be partyin' like it be 1999.

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

where do you come up with yours? all you post is your Opinion on Reagan, Clinton and Bush. not one link to back it up. so look in a mirror before you call CONS stupid

You lazy shits refuse to research anything for yourself. It's amazing. And then when you are given the information that proves the point, you say it is not true. It's laughable. Here is a link for you so you can see the facts for yourself. I'm sure you will still say it is untrue, even though numbers don't lie. The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

 

[auditor0007]

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

the graph shows it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning of his term. That explains all the stupid statements you make. You can't even read a simple graph.

For you too, because you are too stupid to read a graph. You can read it here in real time with real numbers. The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

 

[bripat9643]

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

the graph shows it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning of his term. That explains all the stupid statements you make. You can't even read a simple graph.

For you too, because you are too stupid to read a graph. You can read it here in real time with real numbers. The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Why would I read some sleazy piece of propaganda? The graph shows the facts.

 

[Stephanie]

Has the dial tone on your Obamaphone gone dead yet?

I pay for my phone, so I wouldn't know. Here's a little story for you. You know all that government spending you complain about? Most of that spending ends up going back out to private businesses, which in turn creates more private sector jobs, which in turn leads to even more private sector jobs. Your idea of letting everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible and refusing to allow government to operate efficiently, that is what hurts the economy. Now there is a difference between useful and wasteful government spending, and that should be addressed. The problem with most cons is that they just think the answer is to stop the spending altogether. If you want to know why the economy eventually took off under Reagan, just look at how much he increased government spending. In eight years, he almost doubled it. Obama barely increased spending at all, so we have not seen a robust recovery. It's amazing how you cons are so blind to such a simple fact.

Refuse to allow government to operated efficiently? That's like refusing to allow elephants to fly. Why shouldn't everyone keep as much of their earnings as possible? If they want to help poor people, all they have to do is write a check to a poor person or a charity. If they want to save for their retirement, all they have to do is put their money in the bank or buy some mutual funds.

Reagan reduced the percentage of our GDP consumed by government to the lowest percentage in decades.

Obama added almost $1 trillion to government spending a month after he was inaugurated. You leftwing douche bags never count that increase in spending in your propaganda.

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

lol, them Democrats are saints and tightwads to boot eh? post some links

 

[SmokeALib]

I'm not necessarily a Trumpet, but this country NEEDS to be shook up. We're fading fast, and more socialism will dump us into a cesspool of third world sewage faster than you can say Hillary Clinton. I vote Trump.

 

[auditor0007]

You are so clueless. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Clinton reduced it drastically. Bush exploded it. Obama has gradually brought it down little by little. Now let's discuss your other stupid statement. Obama did not add almost $1 trillion of government spending a month after he was inaugurated. Where do you come up with such nonsense? If he had, our deficit would be over $10 trillion per year. Stupid, stupid, and more stupid is all we get here from cons.

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

the graph shows it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning of his term. That explains all the stupid statements you make. You can't even read a simple graph.

For you too, because you are too stupid to read a graph. You can read it here in real time with real numbers. The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Why would I read some sleazy piece of propaganda? The graph shows the facts.

The graph shows the exact same thing the link shows in numbers. You assholes crack me up claiming you won't read a link because you don't believe it. It's hilarious how stupid you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, douche nozzle. Check out the graph for the years 81 - 89

Proves my point exactly. Thanks for posting this. Reagan increased spending as a percentage of GDP. Then Bush Sr. increased it even more before Clinton dropped it drastically. GW Bush then exploded spending, and Obama has gradually brought it down some.

the graph shows it was lower at the end of his term than at the beginning of his term. That explains all the stupid statements you make. You can't even read a simple graph.

For you too, because you are too stupid to read a graph. You can read it here in real time with real numbers. The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

Why would I read some sleazy piece of propaganda? The graph shows the facts.

The graph shows the exact same thing the link shows in numbers. You assholes crack me up claiming you won't read a link because you don't believe it. It's hilarious how stupid you are.

The graph shows that government expenditures as a percentage of GDP were lower at then end of Reagan's term than they were at the beginning.

 

[ninja007]

dont get why rubio is still in this.

 

[Zander]

Super Trumpday is going exactly as planned.