Reply With Quote
The format lent itself to debate-like self-presentation more than the previous ones, and the moderator exerted a modi of control.
Better than a fckn madman, but very few people are happy about Hillary.Gotta give it to ler tbh. Shes a woman that fits in with the 1%ers, can talk down to the re population and can make backroom deals to keep the pigs fat with no remorse or 2nd thought. Oh and she can spill american soldier blood when need be with no problem whatsoever. Shes basically Dubya, Cheney and Rove all rolled into one large disgusting woman.
We are so ed
The crazy thing is people like you don't think things in this country can get any worse...That we are at some breaking point. Business as usual is very disappointing, but at least this is NOT Russia.
The format lent itself to debate-like self-presentation more than the previous ones, and the moderator exerted a modi of control.
Poor Annabelle Trailerson from Mississippi now has one tooth instead on two! - SAD
CLINTON: "I don't add a penny to the national debt."
THE FACTS:
Not true, according to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. It estimates her increased spending in areas such as infrastructure, more financial aid for college and early childhood education, would increase the national debt by $200 billion over 10 years. That is far less than their estimate for Trump, who they predict would add $5.3 trillion over 10 years. But it's plenty more than a penny.
I don't agree that it was a work, but it's evident that Trump has known that he's been finished for weeks and is now looking towards his upcoming TV project, like you said(next gig)..
Fortunately, I'd go as far as saying I wouldn't be surprised if Shillary is impeached halfway into her term, tbh..the universal dislike for her(outside of Reck) is overwhelming, and there's too much dirt on her, a fatal controversy is inevitable..
Obviously this question calls for speculation. I would say that, when he entered the race, it was a vanity and marketing exercise for him. Just another form of reality TV show. As the race wore on, and the media fell in love with covering him, he realized that he could actually win and decided that he wanted to.
Basically Trump blew an early 20 point lead to lose by 15 in this debate.
Most of the other mainstream GOP would have beaten her including Jeb. None of those guys had the baggage she does. And Jeb had a much better record as governor compared to his brother plus would have gotten a lot more Hispanic voters than Trump is getting now.
"Most of the other mainstream GOP"
bull . America didn't want another Bush, and all the other assholes are too far right, which is where the astroturf Repug asshole base wants them to be, unelectable except in slave/red states.
I don't buy it, the Bush name is toxic as . Kasich would have beaten Clinton. So would Romney. Rubio I'd probably bet on over Clinton, but I doubt he'd be the slam dunk Kasich or Romney would have been. I think Ryan would be a coin flip because of his Medicare plan. Christie would have lost because of his weight. Cruz and Bush would have gotten destroyed.
Kasich's record in OH would have blocked him.
Rubio is just a zero, no accomplishments, horrible record of absenteeism in Senate, and he may not win back his Senate seat in slave state FL.
Romney lost badly once, and his record plus his p/e predations would have brought him down again, plus he probably wouldn't release all his tax returns, again, because he got caught criminally evading tax.
t
I don't think people really looked at Bush 41 as having a failed presidency like they did W. Bush 41's Gulf War was wildly popular and he lost the election mostly because he raised taxes after claiming "No New Taxes!", not because he drove the country off a cliff multiple times like his son.
41 lost because "it's the economy, stupid", the economy was bad, plus Clinton, a vastly superior politician, and his machine simply beat the out of the Repugs.
They were talking about this on Morning Joe (probably the only MS NBC show I can stand). Hillary is going to be ed from the get go. There's going to be investigation after investigation, people are going to keep combing over the wikileaks, McCain has already gone on record saying Congress will fight what ever Justices she tries to appoint, etc. Nothing is ever going to get done. Now if the roles were reversed and Trump won, the same would be taking place. The partisan devide is as wide as it has ever been, and these two candidates are probably the least equipped to deal with that just because of their shady backgrounds.
Throw in the probable economic downturn in 2017 and Hillary will be crazy unpopular.
Welcome to our democracy, where it was purposely made easy to thwart big changes. Where a minority, or another branch, can thwart a president's initiative (or abuse of power if you label it such)
This is why we see congressional ratings are at an all time low while at the same time, the home state congressional leaders get high ratings from cons uents BECAUSE they block the opposition. Congressmen are now running on the "I will block any attempt to....." platform.
You said this about 2016. Tough business this prediction stuff.
Hillary will be considered for the Nobel just like Obama was, for being the first female POTUS. Bill will be the diplomat with congress and the senate, and will be key in her 1st term to smoothing over relations with the GOP. The feds will form a bipartisan committee to investigate whatever Assange is waiting to dump on Hillary (I feel like Assange has something else, but it's going to be more damaging against a sitting POTUS than against a candidate).
I feel like Trump intentionally let HRC off the hook on too many things and instead went after mostly benign things that the US voters really don't know much about. When HRC said Donald can't be trusted with nuclear codes, he could have easily stated that even under this pressure to release them, his tax returns are safe but, as Sec of State, her emails obviously weren't. He could have pointed out that she claimed she didn't know what a confidential do ent looked like, even after being in office for so long, and that she testified that she doesn't recall much of it because of her state of mind or illness or whatever was happening at that time. He didn't say anything about it. His silence seemed scripted, to me anyhow.
Perot nearly 20 million votes. Clinton got 5 more than Bush. Perot was easily drawing 80 - 90% of his support from conservatives/Republicans. If Perot isn't in the race, then Bush wins. If Nader, on the other hand, isn't running in '99, Al Gore Wins (or Clinton wins his 2nd)
^Another moment in history I feel was staged. Perot comes along just long enough to pull votes then drops out. Why would a billionaire at their ages (Perot/Trump) give a about public office?
1% GDP with zero interest rates and hanging on by a thread is not exactly anything to celebrate. Stock market PE is a joke. With 5 quarters in a row of down earnings an economic downturn is inevitable. The only question is what will trigger it.
Huge ego and desire to be noticed.
So you are getting out again and shifting to cash.
When?
Ive made money in 2016 against your prior prediction.
If you really play this game you know how tough it is. From any stand point. So you are too old to dollar cost average. I would just get into cash and turtle up I guess.
This is an interesting thing to fact check Hillary on; if you believe the source, the assessments aren't particularly good for your guy.
So what's your overall theory? The US would have had a 40-year golden age of prosperity under an unbroken line of Republican presidents, except for Trojan horses Perot and Trump and Manchurian candidate Obama who have turned it into a Communist hole?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions