So, what have 8 years of Progressivism brough us?

[*bfine32*]

(06-11-2016, 11:41 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Bush wasn't even out of office and everyone knew how bad he screwed the pooch. Or maybe I should talk about the bang up job his daddy did. Or how Reagan's presidency is still ***** up the country.

You kinda got me confused with your responses in this thread. Is POTUS to be held responsible or not? 

[BigPapaKain]

(06-12-2016, 01:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You kinda got me confused with your responses in this thread. Is POTUS to be held responsible or not? 

Depends on what you're blaming him for.

[Brownshoe]

(06-11-2016, 11:41 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: You think it'll take that long?

Bush wasn't even out of office and everyone knew how bad he screwed the pooch. Or maybe I should talk about the bang up job his daddy did. Or how Reagan's presidency is still ***** up the country.

You do know that a big reason why the economy collapsed under the Bush administration was due to Clinton, right? Signing in the housing act that caused the market to collapse, and signing in NAFTA that sent jobs to other countries. Bush wasn't a good president, but a lot of the economic problems that we had during the Bush administration was due to Bill Clinton.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 08:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: You do know that a big reason why the economy collapsed under the Bush administration was due to Clinton, right? Signing in the housing act that caused the market to collapse, and signing in NAFTA that sent jobs to other countries. Bush wasn't a good president, but a lot of the economic problems that we had during the Bush administration was due to Bill Clinton.

Wait so its ok 16 years later to blame Clinton for something...but it wasn't OK to blame Bush for something as soon as he left office?

Ah...the "logic" of the right.

[BFritz21]

I think the fact that Obama being elected twice and having Republican congress for most of the time shows just how big of a sham it was that Obama was even elected because it shows that people just elected him for his race and the fact that he just promised change when they didn't realize what needed to be done to bring about the change he promised, which was elect a Democratic Congress.

If everyone understood what they were doing and were properly educated on all of the change he promised and things that needed to be done to bring it about, then wouldn't they have shown up to vote for Democrats in Congress to make it happen?

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 10:27 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think the fact that Obama being elected twice and having Republican congress for most of the time shows just how big of a sham it was that Obama was even elected because it shows that people just elected him for his race and the fact that he just promised change when they didn't realize what needed to be done to bring about the change he promised, which was elect a Democratic Congress.

If everyone understood what they were doing and were properly educated on all of the change he promised and things that needed to be done to bring it about, then wouldn't they have shown up to vote for Democrats in Congress to make it happen?

Actually what it shows is that in all those local elections the incumbent is going to win 95% of the time due to redistricting and local politics.

On the national level voters like change every so often.  

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 10:13 AM)GMDino Wrote: Wait so its ok 16 years later to blame Clinton for something...but it wasn't OK to blame Bush for something as soon as he left office?

Ah...the "logic" of the right.

Nope, just blaming Clinton for the fact that he started the recession. Nice try at deflecting though.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 10:38 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope, just blaming Clinton for the fact that he started the recession. Nice try at deflecting though.

No deflection brownshirt.  You brought up Clinton and blamed him for Bush's failures.

And said it was a "fact".

That's funny...since people say Obama blamed Bush for HIS failures and that that was wrong to do.

That is a "fact".

Hell you're saying Clinton is to blame for Obama's failures! 

You guys crack me up.

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 10:45 AM)GMDino Wrote: No deflection brownshirt.  You brought up Clinton and blamed him for Bush's failures.

And said it was a "fact".

That's funny...since people say Obama blamed Bush for HIS failures and that that was wrong to do.

That is a "fact".

Hell you're saying Clinton is to blame for Obama's failures! 

You guys crack me up.

I didn't blame Clinton for Bush's failures. I blamed Clinton for his own failures.

So you don't think they key reason we went into the recession was because of the HUGE crash the housing market took due to Clintons bill? Plus the loss of jobs due to NAFTA. That was easily the biggest reason why the economy collapsed. That IS facts. Otherwise you would say a rebuttal stating otherwise, but you keep deflecting... I wonder why.

Nice deflection though. Keep trying.

[Benton]

(06-12-2016, 10:27 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I think the fact that Obama being elected twice and having Republican congress for most of the time shows just how big of a sham it was that Obama was even elected because it shows that people just elected him for his race and the fact that he just promised change when they didn't realize what needed to be done to bring about the change he promised, which was elect a Democratic Congress.

If everyone understood what they were doing and were properly educated on all of the change he promised and things that needed to be done to bring it about, then wouldn't they have shown up to vote for Democrats in Congress to make it happen?

Both support what studies have said for years: Incumbents are more likely to maintain office. Challengers typically draw more undecided voters or those who dont consider themselves tied to a party. But mainly people just vote for incumbents no matter how inept they are.

Why that happens is still up in the air, but it doesn't have anything to do with race.

[Belsnickel]

(06-12-2016, 10:53 AM)Benton Wrote: Both support what studies have said for years: Incumbents are more likely to maintain office. Challengers typically draw more undecided voters or those who dont consider themselves tied to a party. But mainly people just vote for incumbents no matter how inept they are.

Why that happens is still up in the air, but it doesn't have anything to do with race.

Yeah, I have definitely noticed that in order for an incumbent to be ousted it is more likely to happen at the primary level. At least from what I have paid attention to.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 10:51 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I didn't blame Clinton for Bush's failures. I blamed Clinton for his own failures.

(06-12-2016, 08:15 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: You do know that a big reason why the economy collapsed under the Bush administration was due to Clinton, right? Signing in the housing act that caused the market to collapse, and signing in NAFTA that sent jobs to other countries. Bush wasn't a good president, but a lot of the economic problems that we had during the Bush administration was due to Bill Clinton.

(06-12-2016, 10:51 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nice deflection though. Keep trying.

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 10:59 AM)GMDino Wrote:

So explain to me how it's Bush's failure when Clinton is the one to do it.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 11:04 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: So explain to me how it's Bush's failure when Clinton is the one to do it.

You are shifting the blame of the recession from Bush to Clinton.  Period.

You are saying Bush didn't have failure...Clinton did.  Period.

You are a hypocrite.  Period.

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 11:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: You are shifting the blame of the recession from Bush to Clinton.  Period.

You are saying Bush didn't have failure...Clinton did.  Period.

You are a hypocrite.  Period.

Nope

Nope

Nope

I am stating the fact that Clinton was the major reason for the recession. Not all of Bush's failures.

Keep deflecting though. It's hilarious, because if you knew you were right you would say how you were right and not constantly deflecting.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 11:12 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope

Nope

Nope

I am stating the fact that Clinton was the major reason for the recession. Not all of Bush's failures.

Keep deflecting though. It's hilarious, because if you knew you were right you would say how you were right and not constantly deflecting.

So posting your OWN WORDS back to you isn't right?

You responded to Obama blaming bush by blaming Clinton.

Hilarious.  Thanks for a good Sunday morning laugh.

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 11:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: So posting your OWN WORDS back to you isn't right?

You responded to Obama blaming bush by blaming Clinton.

Hilarious.  Thanks for a good Sunday morning laugh.

And you can't say how it's wrong. Someone was blaming Bush for something Clinton did.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: And you can't say how it's wrong. Someone was blaming Bush for something Clinton did.

Do you get dizzy when you spin like that?

[Brownshoe]

(06-12-2016, 11:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Do you get dizzy when you spin like that?

And you still haven't answered it.

[GMDino]

(06-12-2016, 11:19 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: And you can't say how it's wrong. Someone was blaming Bush for something Clinton did.

Oh Brownshirt, you're missing the point:

It is not whether Clinton made bad choices.  It is YOU shifting blame from Bush to Clinton while saying Obama has no right to shift blame.

Oh...and calling it a "fact".

Gotta couple other guys on here who think opinions are facts too.  You should meet up somewhere.