This post has been removed.
More bad news for the party of "No", No chance at PotUS in 2016.
-
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of ioion
posted at 3/7/2013 3:19 PM EST
Sadly,
airborne is suffering from premature election-ation. Four years premature? Sad.
Thankfully, there are medications which will help.
But if you have an election-ation lasting longer than 5 hours, see your pollster...
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 3:22 PM EST
Wow, shouldn't we really be looking at 2024. Hillary already won 2016 and term two.
With apoll like this giving you real joy; then the 2014 MassGov poll with Brown at 59% must be really upsetting.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 3:26 PM EST
When the Clintons were in the White House, we had a balanced budget and the economy was soaring. When they were replaced, Bush took us from a 300 billion dollar surplus to a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit practically overnight. Obama then was voted in, and his first year's deficit was 1.5 trillion, but he stopped the bleeding. Now we've had about 40 months of consecutive growth, and we're down to ~1.0 trillion in deficits. Another 3 years and we'll be ~500 billion.
The question is this: with the comparative track records between the democrats and the republicans, why would someone want to put a new republican in office when they could go with a Clinton? -
This post has been removed.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 3:52 PM EST
In response to UserName99's comment:
When the Clintons were in the White House, we had a balanced budget and the economy was soaring. When they were replaced, Bush took us from a 300 billion dollar surplus to a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit practically overnight. Obama then was voted in, and his first year's deficit was 1.5 trillion, but he stopped the bleeding. Now we've had about 40 months of consecutive growth, and we're down to ~1.0 trillion in deficits. Another 3 years and we'll be ~500 billion.
The question is this: with the comparative track records between the democrats and the republicans, why would someone want to put a new republican in office when they could go with a Clinton?
Clinton; capitalized on the peace dividend by underfunding the millitary and left it ill equipped to meet the post 9/11 challenges.Clinton; by happenstance was in power during the dotcom bubble; before it burst so no propblem for him
Clinton; ushered the changes in policy through that lead to mortgages being made to those not qualiifed.
This was a lot of the mess from the fall of 2008.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 3:59 PM EST
In response to UserName99's comment:
When the Clintons were in the White House, we had a balanced budget and the economy was soaring. When they were replaced, Bush took us from a 300 billion dollar surplus to a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit practically overnight. Obama then was voted in, and his first year's deficit was 1.5 trillion, but he stopped the bleeding. Now we've had about 40 months of consecutive growth, and we're down to ~1.0 trillion in deficits. Another 3 years and we'll be ~500 billion.
The question is this: with the comparative track records between the democrats and the republicans, why would someone want to put a new republican in office when they could go with a Clinton?
Obama stopped the bleeding.?Really ...How so? By slashing the patients wrists and emptying out all the blood for 4 years?.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 4:00 PM EST
In response to UserName99's comment:
When the Clintons were in the White House, we had a balanced budget and the economy was soaring. When they were replaced, Bush took us from a 300 billion dollar surplus to a 1.2 trillion dollar deficit practically overnight. Obama then was voted in, and his first year's deficit was 1.5 trillion, but he stopped the bleeding. Now we've had about 40 months of consecutive growth, and we're down to ~1.0 trillion in deficits. Another 3 years and we'll be ~500 billion.
The question is this: with the comparative track records between the democrats and the republicans, why would someone want to put a new republican in office when they could go with a Clinton?
Why?....because brain damage is prevalent in our society.
Just look around you. People wasting their lives on Facebook, texting, watching "reality" television. The rational thinking people among us are in a strong minority.
I truly believe that in our world today a totally incompetent person could win the presidency based on propaganda, lies and scare tactics. Just look at Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, you don't get more incompetent than those two....neither one could run a successful lemonade stand (maybe a shoe store, though), and yet they both gained a legion of followers ( almost a cult following), that is scary....and I don't say that because these are women. We actually have some capable, sensible women in politics ( most are Democrats, however...but I'm sure there are a few that are Republicans).
I think Ronald McDonald could make a successful run if he promised free fries with every assault rifle. If he said he would build 600 more restaurants creating a few thousand jobs. And promised to lower gas prices and bring back incandescent light bulbs.
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 5:55 PM EST
I'll take Hillary over this zipper head any day of the week. If its ok with you lefties can she finish out his term?
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/7/2013 7:08 PM EST
That same poll show that a majority of this country's Republicans also disapprove of the Congressional GOP.
-
This post has been removed.
-
Re: More bad news for the party of
posted at 3/8/2013 3:09 PM EST
Heard the same about Reagan's second term, Bush I's first, and Bush II's first and second.
Worked out well . . .
-
This post has been removed.