More bad news for the party of "No", No chance at PotUS in 2016.

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of ioion

    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...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName99. Show UserName99's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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?.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    That same poll show that a majority of this country's Republicans also disapprove of the Congressional GOP.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: More bad news for the party of

    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?




    "40 months of consecutive growth"?   A Y K M?  Care to show some proof of that nonsense?

    What are you smoking?

     

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     

Share