Hillary Clinton = Defacto President Elect

[Sonikku]

"It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so." - Ronald Reagan

This coming from the guy pushing Reaganomics. :hmm:

 

[shady28]

In what world could Trump win? I am just not seeing it. This election is over and we get more Clinton. I am pretty sure that we should just coronate the Clintons and the Bushes and just get over it. I won't see the end of their control in my lifetime. These two families have had a stranglehold on power for nearly 40 years now. I think it is kind of unprecedented in American history. Really depressed right now.

If you read up on Trump's positions and history, not the MSM image of him, he is really a social moderate - maybe even a liberal. His main "right" positions are on illegal immigration and H1B/H2B visas (and their abuse), along with his derision for "globalist" trade policies that don't put Americans first.



http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

Last week, Rasmussen Reports gave voters the option of staying home on Election Day if Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are the big party nominees, and six percent (6%) said that’s what they intend to do for now. Clinton and Trump were tied with 38% support each; 16% said they would vote for some other candidate, and two percent (2%) were undecided.

But Trump edges slightly ahead if the stay-at-home option is removed. Trump also now does twice as well among Democrats as Clinton does among Republicans.

Trump now has the support of 73% of Republicans, while 77% of Democrats back Clinton. But Trump picks up 15% of Democrats, while just eight percent (8%) of GOP voters prefer Clinton, given this matchup.

An example of what I'm talking about :

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/16/the-lgbt-pick-for-the-gop-nomination-donald-trump/

He is also one of only two Republican candidates — along with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie — that the Human Rights Campaign deems to have even a “mixed” record on gay rights

“He is one of the best, if not the best, pro-gay Republican candidates to ever run for the presidency,” said Gregory T. Angelo, president of the Log Cabin Republicans, an advocacy group for LGBT Republicans. Trump would do no harm on same-sex marriage, Angelo said, and has a “stand-out position” on non-discrimination legislation.

 

[Hugo Drax]

If the Sanders voters stay home this election would Clinton still beat Trump easy?

 

[Victorian Gray]

If the Sanders voters stay home this election would Clinton still beat Trump easy?

If grass is green then is the moon made of blue cheese?

 

[Hugo Drax]

If grass is green then is the moon made of blue cheese?

What is with the word salad? Do you suffer from some kind of mental illness?

 

[Jhhnn]

If the Sanders voters stay home this election would Clinton still beat Trump easy?

If pigs had wings, would they fly?

Confronted with Trump or Cruz it seems unlikely that progressives will stay home.

It's not like independents are wild about either of them.

 

[Victorian Gray]

What is with the word salad? Do you suffer from some kind of mental illness?

Seemed to make as much sense as your question.

 

[Bowfinger]

It is the only way the left can win. Don't like hillary because she hasn't had any real achievements in life you're a mysoginist (but we are off the reservation, perhaps she needs powwow chow to get us back on). Don't like Barry because he hasn't done shit in the last 7 years, you're a racist (but hey, a comedian can call Obama whatever he wants, while hugely disrespecting the office, but that isn't racist),

You seem to love dishonest arguments. Why is that? For the record, I have never called you a misogynist for your criticisms of Clinton, nor a racist for your criticisms of Obama. (I do note with amusement that in the typical RNC fashion, you criticize Obama because "he hasn't done shit in the last 7 years" while elsewhere blast him for all the radical changes he's made to destroy America. Conservatives seem to have no problem holding contradictory beliefs.)

don't like illegal immigration but font talk about enforcement (which I have, such as employment controls using existing laws) you're racist....etc

I've never called you racist for discussing immigration enforcement. Indeed, if you weren't so busy attacking stereotypes and straw men, you might note that I have also called for more aggressively enforcing employment controls. Simple supply and demand -- and the lessons of history -- show us that reducing demand is the key to reducing supply.

I am suggesting most of your/Trump's wild "plans" are impractical and poor values, costing far more than their possible benefits. (Of course others, like "Mexico will pay for a wall" are pure nonsense.) I also suggest that your seemingly exclusive fixation on the southern border out of all the holes I listed indicates your motivation may be tainted by another agenda. You're welcome to rationalize it in other ways, but you have a track record that erodes your credibility.

Rather than debating facts they just want to call names. But woe betide anybody who calls them on playing those cards.

Again, tend to the beam in your own eye, hypocrite. You are one of P&N's most belligerent posters, freely hurling vitriolic insults at any who dare challenge you. You also consistently ignore facts others use to refute you. It is one of your most defining traits. My posts above are just the most recent examples.

You haven't dared a single thing.

1. They may overstay visas, but they are vetted can can be found far easier since we collect a lot of info on them, far more than a border jumper. That is u less you think the coyotes hands ice a list of people.

More later...

* crickets *

 

[LegendKiller]

* crickets *

Yeah, no kidding. You haven't refuted even that one.

But please do, I will enjoy you parsing that too.

 

[KK]

Who anointed these two jack ass parties rulers. I think everyone with ties to these two terrorist parties by tried for treason.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yeah, no kidding. You haven't refuted even that one.

But please do, I will enjoy you parsing that too.

That's what I figured. You are a blowhard, a liar, and a coward. You and Donnie are perfect together.

 

[LegendKiller]

That's what I figured. You are a blowhard, a liar, and a coward. You and Donnie are perfect together.

Lol, run away from it.

BTW is your door locked?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This coming from the guy pushing Reaganomics. :hmm:

Reaganomics was actually quite successful.

 

[Jhhnn]

Reaganomics was actually quite successful.

Any president can look good while tripling the national debt.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Any president can look good while tripling the national debt.

Yet my point stands. Here's a broader perspective for those interested.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yet my point stands. Here's a broader perspective for those interested.

Please. Beyond the effects of militaristic Keynesianism we also had the Repub sponsored financial sector smoke & mirrors leading to the S&L crisis & the easing of interest rates by the FRB.

Our credit driven economy was bound to improve as rates fell from 20% to half that over his tenure.

The 80's were also when the fortunes of the wealthiest & the rest of America began to diverge-

What happened to that trickle down effect, anyway?

The correct answer is that there isn't any, of course.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Our credit driven economy was bound to improve as rates fell from 20% to half that over his tenure.

Reagan inherited a disaster from Carter. And if it was so simple to fix, one would hope that Carter would have done so.

What happened to that trickle down effect, anyway?

The trickle down effect did fine under Reagan even after a severe double-dip recession. However, if this concerns you so much, why aren't you bitching about Obama's legacy?

Anyway, you were previously talking about debt and then suddenly changed the subject to 'trickle down'. So what happened? Did reality shatter that idiotic meme that you reflexively regurgitate without even a single synapse firing?

 

[lopri]

And they thought jeb was the defacto gop nominee.

Has there been a time when Jeb was considered the de facto nominee? I did not pay attention to this race at the beginning and since I started watching he has never been a de facto anything. He did have most endorsements early on, yes, but the number of endorsements were still few at the time.

Many candidates had gone through their share of peaks - Paul, Carlson, Cruz, Rubio, Christie, etc. - and what I heard at the time was how "deep" the GOP bench was this time around. Frankly I did not think any standout among the 17.

They'll be out voting for Hillary in November. She'll probably nominate Al Franken as her VP pick. I'm looking forward to Bill O'Reilly's reaction when that happens.

Franken would be a fantastic pick!

 

[soundforbjt]

Has there been a time when Jeb was considered the de facto nominee? I did not pay attention to this race at the beginning and since I started watching he has never been a de facto anything. He did have most endorsements early on, yes, but the number of endorsements were still few at the time.

Many candidates had gone through their share of peaks - Paul, Carlson, Cruz, Rubio, Christie, etc. - and what I heard at the time was how "deep" the GOP bench was this time around. Frankly I did not think any standout among the 17.



Franken would be a fantastic pick!

I happened to watch Hannity for a few minutes monday, he actually called the 17 repub candidates "Rock Stars", I mean does he really believe that sh*t!

 

[lopri]

And Obama fanned racial tensions, economic malaise, continued offshoring, unfettered illegal immigration...etc

Can you give some specifics of such charges? As far as I know Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any president in history.

This has been the theme I observed for some time. Republican presidents talk. Very loudly. Then they usually do nothing, or worse (e.g. taking us to wars) Democratic presidents may not talk in inflammatory manners, but they tend to get the jobs done without much fanfare (by the press, anyway).

 

[fskimospy]

The trickle down effect did fine under Reagan even after a severe double-dip recession. However, if this concerns you so much, why aren't you bitching about Obama's legacy?

Anyway, you were previously talking about debt and then suddenly changed the subject to 'trickle down'. So what happened? Did reality shatter that idiotic meme that you reflexively regurgitate without a single synapse firing?

Trickle down economics did not and does not do fine. Economics research into this shows that increasing the income share of top earners does not increase economic growth. (it actually decreases it)

Reagan growth was primarily produced by dramatically looser monetary policy and deficit spending, which ironically is basically the same Keynesian stimulus that conservatives claim to hate. In Reagan's case the overall stimulus idea was good, but he stupidly wasted a good portion of it on ineffective tax cuts for rich people. Now we know better.

 

[lopri]

I happened to watch Hannity for a few minutes monday, he actually called the 17 repub candidates "Rock Stars", I mean does he really believe that sh*t!

It is fitting the final two are Cruz and The Duck. The Duck being the nominee, most likely. And his entourage is just.. impressive.

Katrina Pierson

Corey Lewandowski

Newt Gingrich

Eric "philanthropist" Trump

 

[LegendKiller]

Can you give some specifics of such charges? As far as I know Obama deported more undocumented immigrants than any president in history.

This has been the theme I observed for some time. Republican presidents talk. Very loudly. Then they usually do nothing, or worse (e.g. taking us to wars) Democratic presidents may not talk in inflammatory manners, but they tend to get the jobs done without much fanfare (by the press, anyway).

They aren't undocumented immigrants. They are breaking us immigration laws, thus, they are illegal immigrants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...amned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Trickle down economics did not and does not do fine. Economics research into this shows that increasing the income share of top earners does not increase economic growth. (it actually decreases it)

Reagan growth was primarily produced by dramatically looser monetary policy and deficit spending, which ironically is basically the same Keynesian stimulus that conservatives claim to hate. In Reagan's case the overall stimulus idea was good, but he stupidly wasted a good portion of it on ineffective tax cuts for rich people. Now we know better.

Marginal tax rates under Reagan were cut across the board...not just the rich. Tax rates under Obama are even lower than under Reagan. Income inequity under Obama is significantly worse than it was under Reagan. Yet Reagan is the demon here?

"It is undeniable that the sharp reduction in taxes in the early 1980s was a strong impetus to economic growth." - President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers (1994)

Spin it as you will...but overall Reagan did a good job with the disaster he inherited from Carter.

 

[ivwshane]

They aren't undocumented immigrants. They are breaking us immigration laws, thus, they are illegal immigrants.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...amned-lies-and-obamas-deportation-statistics/

What is it you think that link did for your original argument?