Why Hillary Will Win (probably)

[Antares]

Walker, Cruz, Rubio,Paul.

No Bush ever again.....

So you really going to sit 2016 out WHEN (not if) Bush is the GOP nominee?

I sat out McCain, I will sit out Bush

 

[JoeB131]

Just how fucking stupid are you? I'm the one that is on the subject, I just told you that I wasn't interested in changing the subject but since you cannot understand what you read you didn't kniw that. Now you are trying to claim I'm changing the subject. Retard.

You are dismissed.

The Topic of this thread is "Why Hillary Will Win".

I'm sorry you are confused on the concept, but you are the retard who lives in mortal fear that Unions might win a decent wage for you when you clean bedpans...

You're God's own special retard, aren't you?

 

[JoeB131]

Walker, Cruz, Rubio,Paul.

No Bush ever again.....

So you really going to sit 2016 out WHEN (not if) Bush is the GOP nominee?

I sat out McCain, I will sit out Bush

I'll bookmark this for next year when he's the nominee.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're a blind partisan.

You didn't answer my question.

Why should i care about personal corruption that has no effect on my life?

You won't hear me bitching about E-mails or Monica's stained dress. You also won't hear me bitching about GW Bush's spotty National Guard Service or about who outed Valerie Plame.

None of that shit has any effect on my life.

Bush crashing the economy in 2008 caused me to suffer

His incompetence, his mismanagement, his stupidity had an effect on my life.

That's really the only standard one should judge people on.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Or 8 years ago.

Was I better off in 2000 than I was in 1992? Abso-fucking-lutely. My pay increased, my property was sold for twice what I paid for it in 1987. Clinton was good for me. And I was one of you right wing assholes who got upset because he LIED about a blow job.

Was I worse off in 2008 than I was in 2000? a 20% reduction in pay, a loss of 50% of my stock value and a my condo being worth only 50% of what i paid for it. Yes, I voted for that idiot twice and paid a steep price for it.

so if you guys are going to make this a Bush vs. Clinton argument, I am going to have to judge it based on what really matters to me.

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

 

[rightwinger]

You're a blind partisan.

You didn't answer my question.

Why should i care about personal corruption that has no effect on my life?

You won't hear me bitching about E-mails or Monica's stained dress. You also won't hear me bitching about GW Bush's spotty National Guard Service or about who outed Valerie Plame.

None of that shit has any effect on my life.

Bush crashing the economy in 2008 caused me to suffer

His incompetence, his mismanagement, his stupidity had an effect on my life.

That's really the only standard one should judge people on.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Or 8 years ago.

Was I better off in 2000 than I was in 1992? Abso-fucking-lutely. My pay increased, my property was sold for twice what I paid for it in 1987. Clinton was good for me. And I was one of you right wing assholes who got upset because he LIED about a blow job.

Was I worse off in 2008 than I was in 2000? a 20% reduction in pay, a loss of 50% of my stock value and a my condo being worth only 50% of what i paid for it. Yes, I voted for that idiot twice and paid a steep price for it.

so if you guys are going to make this a Bush vs. Clinton argument, I am going to have to judge it based on what really matters to me.

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

It was Gore who invented the internet

 

[Papageorgio]

You're a blind partisan.

You didn't answer my question.

Why should i care about personal corruption that has no effect on my life?

You won't hear me bitching about E-mails or Monica's stained dress. You also won't hear me bitching about GW Bush's spotty National Guard Service or about who outed Valerie Plame.

None of that shit has any effect on my life.

Bush crashing the economy in 2008 caused me to suffer

His incompetence, his mismanagement, his stupidity had an effect on my life.

That's really the only standard one should judge people on.

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" Or 8 years ago.

Was I better off in 2000 than I was in 1992? Abso-fucking-lutely. My pay increased, my property was sold for twice what I paid for it in 1987. Clinton was good for me. And I was one of you right wing assholes who got upset because he LIED about a blow job.

Was I worse off in 2008 than I was in 2000? a 20% reduction in pay, a loss of 50% of my stock value and a my condo being worth only 50% of what i paid for it. Yes, I voted for that idiot twice and paid a steep price for it.

so if you guys are going to make this a Bush vs. Clinton argument, I am going to have to judge it based on what really matters to me.

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

Lefty's have never been bright enough to figure that out.

 

[GWV5903]

One smart thing the GOP did was limit the number of debates. On the surface, at least, this was smart because it gives the whackjob candidacies of Cruz and Paul less official forums to announce their positions. Contrary to the belief that the Parties pick the candidtes; they actually have very little authority over them let alone control what they say. The flip side is that the urge to make a "big splash" may be too great for either of them to understand. Those who are looking to put their marker down somewhere between the hard right and the moderate right are probably the most dangerous.

Every karem to or pander toward the hard right forces the eventual nominee to move in that direction. This will, of course, hamstring him in the general election when the enevitable move back to the center has to be made.

The reason Hillary will win is because no such force sits to her left which would force her to react in such an irrational manner. Also, if such a force were to materialize, there would still be no need for Clinton to make the move; the voters on the hard left will be there for her in November. If we learned anything from 2012 it is that the hard right will abandon a GOP candidate that is seen as not willing to carry their water and message.

Obama fatigue and the ocassional flub (if they are ocassional) and tactical mis-step of the Clinton campaign will play a role as well but there shouldn't be enough of them to swing the election.

She isn't a shoo-in for the Presidency; there is still a long way to go. But it would be hard to imagine a better set-up for Secretary Clinton than what has happened in the last few weeks with Cruz, Paul and Rubio entering the race

Were you asleep during the midterms?

No.

What happened was the time-honored refudiation of a 6th year President's party....Reagan lost just as many seats (give or take a few) that Obama lost and his positives were quite high. Look it up if you don't believe me.

You also had an unusually large number of blue Senate seats up for election relative to red seats. Such will not be the case in 2016.

The 2016 election will have much more interest and deliver the results I predict:

HRC wins Presidency
Dems win Senate
GOP keeps House

You're too funny...

No one gave Obama much of a chance against her...

She will get harpooned by her own...

 

[JoeB131]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

 

[JoeB131]

Lefty's have never been bright enough to figure that out.

I don't know, it always seems odd that recessions happen on Republican Watches. How is that?

Certainly has been the case of all of my lifetime, and even before that. My parents used to say, "Democrats brought us wars, Republicans brought us Recessions."

Now we've got the Bush Crime Family. They bring us both.

 

[Papageorgio]

Lefty's have never been bright enough to figure that out.

I don't know, it always seems odd that recessions happen on Republican Watches. How is that?

Certainly has been the case of all of my lifetime, and even before that. My parents used to say, "Democrats brought us wars, Republicans brought us Recessions."

Now we've got the Bush Crime Family. They bring us both.

Get a clue, wait, never mind, you a fucktard that believes that a President is the cause of a recession two months into a term. Sorry but your fucking stupidity is just to unbelievable. You are some kind of plant.

 

[JoeB131]

Get a clue, wait, never mind, you a fucktard that believes that a President is the cause of a recession two months into a term. Sorry but your fucking stupidity is just to unbelievable. You are some kind of plant.

First the recession started six months into Bush's term.

Second, just like about everything else on his watch, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the 2008 recession, it was his reaction to things that made them much worse.

A competent President would have created a stimulus package instead of just giving a tax benefit to the rich. That's what made the 2001 recession worse. Oh, that and Bush ignore the CIA when they came to him telling him Bin Laden was about to strike America.

If he had acted on that intelligence, had he taken appropriate actions like Clinton did to the 1991 recession, probably wouldn't have been a recession at all.

 

[Papageorgio]

Get a clue, wait, never mind, you a fucktard that believes that a President is the cause of a recession two months into a term. Sorry but your fucking stupidity is just to unbelievable. You are some kind of plant.

First the recession started six months into Bush's term.

Second, just like about everything else on his watch, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the 2008 recession, it was his reaction to things that made them much worse.

A competent President would have created a stimulus package instead of just giving a tax benefit to the rich. That's what made the 2001 recession worse. Oh, that and Bush ignore the CIA when they came to him telling him Bin Laden was about to strike America.

If he had acted on that intelligence, had he taken appropriate actions like Clinton did to the 1991 recession, probably wouldn't have been a recession at all.

What a fuckin liar, making up your own facts again.

Dumb shit, here it is, started in March 2001 and ended in November 2001.

Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26 2001

Of course you don't consider CNN a good source.

 

[rightwinger]

Get a clue, wait, never mind, you a fucktard that believes that a President is the cause of a recession two months into a term. Sorry but your fucking stupidity is just to unbelievable. You are some kind of plant.

First the recession started six months into Bush's term.

Second, just like about everything else on his watch, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the 2008 recession, it was his reaction to things that made them much worse.

A competent President would have created a stimulus package instead of just giving a tax benefit to the rich. That's what made the 2001 recession worse. Oh, that and Bush ignore the CIA when they came to him telling him Bin Laden was about to strike America.

If he had acted on that intelligence, had he taken appropriate actions like Clinton did to the 1991 recession, probably wouldn't have been a recession at all.

Bush was like a deer in the headlights when the 2008 recession hit

He didn't even admit we were in a recession till after the November election

 

[Papageorgio]

Get a clue, wait, never mind, you a fucktard that believes that a President is the cause of a recession two months into a term. Sorry but your fucking stupidity is just to unbelievable. You are some kind of plant.

First the recession started six months into Bush's term.

Second, just like about everything else on his watch, 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, the 2008 recession, it was his reaction to things that made them much worse.

A competent President would have created a stimulus package instead of just giving a tax benefit to the rich. That's what made the 2001 recession worse. Oh, that and Bush ignore the CIA when they came to him telling him Bin Laden was about to strike America.

If he had acted on that intelligence, had he taken appropriate actions like Clinton did to the 1991 recession, probably wouldn't have been a recession at all.

The 1990 recession began in July of 1990 and ended in March of 1991. Unemployment peakedJuly of 1992 and dropped from there. Clinton did come into office until the end of January 2003.

Another lie from Joe, lying is easy for Joe, it comes in every post.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

Hey MORON Bush's tax cuts were much bigger for the POOR than they were for the rich, you ungrateful POS.

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

Hey MORON Bush's tax cuts were much bigger for the POOR than they were for the rich, you ungrateful POS.

But most of the tax savings went to the rich

Republicans know all about wrapping the poor into their tax cuts. It helps sell the program. Meanwhile, the rich reap most of the savings

 

[RKMBrown]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

Hey MORON Bush's tax cuts were much bigger for the POOR than they were for the rich, you ungrateful POS.

But most of the tax savings went to the rich

Republicans know all about wrapping the poor into their tax cuts. It helps sell the program. Meanwhile, the rich reap most of the savings

That's because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE RICH.

I get a 5% tax break you get a 100% tax break. And you BITCH AND MOAN THAT MY 5% is bigger than your 100%. If you want to PAY MORE IN TAXES LIKE I DO, go out and EARN IT. Then you can brag about getting a bigger tax cut. ROFL Yeah I'm sure you'll see going from paying NOTHING IN TAXES to paying 1/3 OF YOUR INCOME IN TAXES as a bigger tax break.

 

[rightwinger]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

Hey MORON Bush's tax cuts were much bigger for the POOR than they were for the rich, you ungrateful POS.

But most of the tax savings went to the rich

Republicans know all about wrapping the poor into their tax cuts. It helps sell the program. Meanwhile, the rich reap most of the savings

That's because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE RICH.

I get a 5% tax break you get a 100% tax break. And you BITCH AND MOAN THAT MY 5% is bigger than your 100%. If you want to PAY MORE IN TAXES LIKE I DO, go out and EARN IT. Then you can brag about getting a bigger tax cut. ROFL Yeah I'm sure you'll see going from paying NOTHING IN TAXES to paying 1/3 OF YOUR INCOME IN TAXES as a bigger tax break.

No shit

A poor person getting a 5% tax break might save $800 over a year
A wealthy person getting a 1% tax break will save $100,000

That is why republicans always put in a lower bracket tax cut to be "fair"

But whose tax break do Conservatives get enraged over?
Why the 47% of course

 

[RKMBrown]

Clinton did not "cause" the dot com boom. Bush did not "cause" the dot com bust.

NO, Bush just made all the wrong decisions after the market crashed in 2001 and 2008.

Yes, you had a boom, and a bust. And then Bush's thought was, 'Hey, let's give a bunch of tax cuts to billionaires, that'll fix it!" when in fact, a lack of capital wasn't the problem in 2001 at all.

The problem was that there was too much inventory, and consumers didn't have the money to buy it up. Therefore, no jobs.

In short, he applied a Supply Side solution to a Keynesian problem. At least until the War broke out, and he coudl spend real money.

Hey MORON Bush's tax cuts were much bigger for the POOR than they were for the rich, you ungrateful POS.

But most of the tax savings went to the rich

Republicans know all about wrapping the poor into their tax cuts. It helps sell the program. Meanwhile, the rich reap most of the savings

That's because THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TAXES ARE PAID BY THE RICH.

I get a 5% tax break you get a 100% tax break. And you BITCH AND MOAN THAT MY 5% is bigger than your 100%. If you want to PAY MORE IN TAXES LIKE I DO, go out and EARN IT. Then you can brag about getting a bigger tax cut. ROFL Yeah I'm sure you'll see going from paying NOTHING IN TAXES to paying 1/3 OF YOUR INCOME IN TAXES as a bigger tax break.

No shit

A poor person getting a 5% tax break might save $800 over a year
A wealthy person getting a 1% tax break will save $100,000

That is why republicans always put in a lower bracket tax cut to be "fair"

But whose tax break do Conservatives get enraged over?
Why the 47% of course

That's because it's not right for HALF THE EFFING COUNTRY (democrats) TO NOT BE PULLING THEIR OWN GD WEIGHT WHILE THEY BITCH AND MOAN AND CRY CLAIMING THAT THE OTHER HALF WHO ARE ACTUALLY PAYING TAXES ARE NOT PAYING ENOUGH IN TAXES. As for the folks that get away with paying no income taxes and wish for everyone else to also not have to pay income taxes... as for those people, I give them a thumbs up and a high five. It's not that anyone gives a shit that someone is paying less its the scum bags that are bitching that others WHO ARE ALREADY PAYING MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF THE WEIGHT, ARE NOT PULLING HARD ENOUGH. You don't like how fast I'm rowing for you? Fine, get the EFFING HELL OUT OF MY BOAT.

 

[JoeB131]

What a fuckin liar, making up your own facts again.

Dumb shit, here it is, started in March 2001 and ended in November 2001.

Economists say recession began in March - Nov. 26 2001

Of course you don't consider CNN a good source.

Technically, it doesn't become a recession until you have TWO consequutive quarters of negative GDP Growth. So Bush just sat their watching the economy sink, and the only thing he could think of was 'Tax cuts for rich people". Which was the same thing he was proposing before the economy started sinking.

The Bush Crime Family gave us recessions and wars, and you want to put his brother in office. Brilliant!