I'm not paranoid about anything here. I do know that many polls are slanted depending on how they are taken and who is paying for the polls. I don't snivel, but I do tell the truth! Try it some time.
In retrospect, the two wars can easily be looked at in a positive light (the late Christopher Hitchens actually championed them until his death). The economic collapse actually didn't have jack to do with Bush's policies, despite what petty rhetoric would say. In retrospect, ideological views aside (as a libertarian I'm not fond of Bush), the big problems in his Presidency are not things that can not and never will be looked on positively. As far as Obamacare - his popularity has sunk because of it, you're just assuming it will rise "once people realize how good it is" (<--general claim made), which the evidence hardly seems to suggest. The benefits of it have been touted so much. If I remember right (and this is vague, don't quote me on it) Obama himself has actually stumped more for Obamacare than any previous President stumped period. Add to that the government money spent basically on advertising Obamacare - what was it, $20million? Yeah, people know the positive talking points, but the more they've learned about the bill in general (aside from the talking points), the less popular it has become. It was unpopular long before the website issues. As far as the wars - are you just forgetting that Clinton supported both of them? The Clinton that nearly was nominated in 2008?
No, Republicans do have a real chance over Hillary.. -_- omg, I just refuted your statement with JUST as much evidence and rationale as you provided! but really, come on man. Provide a reasoning. If you just state your opinion, all that we have to go in is, "well, that's your opinion," but if you provide your reasoning than we can actually discuss the substance. Why do you think no Republican has a chance at beating Hillary? I heard that up and down in 2008.
You'll never succeed in turning Iraq into Clinton's War, that was pure Bush, poorly conceived, poorly executed and poorly lead. - - - Updated - - - Because just the name Clinton evokes memories of the best days of America, peace and prosperity. Budget surplus, economic growth. Guess what the name Bush evokes.....
I know that many who snivel like to believe that they tell the truth. Denouncing polls because you don't like what they reveal by claiming an awareness of their methodology and financing when you can document neither reveals an uninformed partisan prejudice, nothing more.
no birddog you are not rational and you are not well informed either. Asking how Bush screwed up the country? Really? Come on back to earth will ya?
What type of evidence would you like? Hillary has the experience as a White House wife, which is NOT insignificant, she has experience as a U.S. Senator, and she has experience as the Secretary of State. This is why I say no Republican can even offer up a whiff of competition for her experience both as a leader of our country and on the world stage. She outdistances each and every challenger that I have heard mentioned, Christy, Romney (again), Ryan, Bush, Rubio, McDonnell, Paul, Jindal, Haley, Thune, or Pence, as none of them has a lick of experience outside a governorship or Legislative position. Anyone in their right mind can see this, and I believe there are enough sane Americans, and especially women, who will make this happen.
There will be new blood, but it will not be a Constitutional conservative, the total rejection of Paul over and over and over is proof the American People do not buy into their ideas.
I wasn't the one who posted the poll without explaining the methodology and who posted it! I admit to being prejudiced, but I'm also fair and honest.
You have my vote. Who cares about plans... and no need to make promises you won't keep. As Obama has shown.... anyone can be President.
Screwing up the country was a joint effort of both parties, with Clinton setting up the main part of it. Both parties are to blame including Bush, and I would say 60% of the blame should go to the Ds, and 40% to the Rs.
I was remiss in failing to note that Gallup compiled the data that I had posted. I'm not sure if you scoff at all polls that do not sustain your admitted prejudices, just all Gallup polls that do not sustain your admitted prejudices, or all polls regardless of your admitted prejudices, but if it is your subjective judgment that your prejudices are "fair and honest", I suspect that you share that self-assessment with many who are prejudiced in their dubious dependence upon their one person polls.
Clinton ended his terms with a SURPLUS, yeah he got rid of the Bush deficits, so he (Clinton) was NOT any part of the blame in screwing up the country. Who does that leave? Bush + Bush = 100% of the blame.
If Gore had been elected it's very likely that 9/11 would not have occurred because Richard Clarke and his position as CT officer would not have been demoted to a non-Cabinet position like W did and Gore would have hired a National Security Adviser who was more concerned about Middle Eastern terrorist organizations than the Cold War.
It was not a real surplus, and improvements were directly related to the congress becoming R in 94. We would be far better off if a R had been elected in 08!
The Congress is NOW R and look at the shape we are in. R really works doesn't it? NOT! If a Republican would have been elected in 2008, our country would not even exist now. MacCain would have had us in one war after another, and Palin would have had us in armed conflict with our own neighbors here at home. Like Palin says, he who shoots first, lives.
I hear dems go on and on about the "great" recovery we are experiencing. Are you saying there is none under Obama?
Sorry if I misled you, I was not speaking about the recovery or lack of it under Obama, I was referring to the blatant lack of progress in Congress.
What does he actually propose you think he "sounds good" about? - - - Updated - - - Don't forget the original budget buster. Reagan (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ed about Carter's measely little deficit, and then promptly tripled it and almost tripled the nation's debt in 4 years. It had quadrupled by the time his protege left office.
RW propaganda. The Republicans took control of Congress in 1995. By then, the record deficit Clinton inherited (proportionately bigger than ours today) had already been dramatically reduced after the Clinton tax increase in 1993: Year - Total deficit 1992 -290.3 1993 -255.1 Clinton tax increase 1994 -203.2 1995 -164.0 Repubicans take Congress 1996 -107.4 1997 -21.9 1998 69.3 1999 125.6 2000 236.2 The Republicans wanted to slash taxes (as always) but Clinton held them off with his veto, compromising with a small cap gains tax cut passed in 1997. In 2001, the Republicans got their way, and we got the golden opportunity of a surplus squandered as tax cuts and military spending returned us to record deficits in a few short years. Who McCain? LOL
Maybe a teensy-weensy recovery, but essentially nothing gets through unless it has some T.P. fat in it, but essentially everything else fails because it calls for the repeal of the ACA. These TPers and the TP-influenced Republicans just refuse to say to the Democrats "Let's sit down together like we were elected to do, and hash out any problems that we see in the ACA law, in order to improve it for our constituents". Wouldn't it be a much wiser thing to do than to just say "no" all the time? Maybe it would even look like Congressmen were earning their generous salaries, instead of getting paid to accomplish nothing.
