Final Nevada Vote Tally- Bad news for GOP

[del]

Most people dont realise Las Vegas has a large mormon population.

many people realize your house has a large moron population.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

so you are so uninformed you think cutting the money in our economy would lead to recovery?

So you are so stupid you think government deficit spending has anything to do with the amount of money in the economy?

 

[Avorysuds]

The country will get the president they deserve. This time around i don't want to hear a peep from the Obama supporters when he strips out the remaining civil liberties we once enjoyed in this country and turns that 15 trillion dollar debt into 20-25 trillion by 2016. If the dollar even makes it that far.

Remember after Obama won the election and there was a run on ammunition? And people paid through the nose for it because "Obama was gonna take their guns" away?

And how long did that last? 2 years, before you clowns figured out he wasn't gonna take your guns and ammo away and prices finally dropped.


And if you don't like Obama's debt, you should have paid attention when George Bush rang up his tax cuts and wars on the national credit card. 1/5th of "Obama's" deficits are direct results of Bush policies.

Now don't you feel silly being WRONG about so many things?

It's 2012, I adre you to update that chart.

 

[California Girl]

Most people dont realise Las Vegas has a large mormon population.

many people realize your house has a large moron population.

I realize that Truth does not matter to TruffMocker. Does that count?

 

[Dragon]

It's not that easy to defeat a sitting president running for reelection. There have been 44 presidents of the U.S. Of those, the following who were elected for a first term lost their bid for a second term:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
William H. Taft
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George H.W. Bush

Nine out of 44 is not very good odds. As long as the economy continues to improve, Obama is almost sure to win reelection, no matter who the Republicans nominate.

What should be of more concern is the prospect of what low GOP voter turnout will do to the Congressional elections. There may be a real danger of the party losing the House.

 

[Avorysuds]

so you are so uninformed you think cutting the money in our economy would lead to recovery?

Here is the main issue TM, and while your brain is the size of a rotting pea I think you can understand it.

Currently we have an economic model based on kyens economics. Our government spends more money than we take in to get us out of recessions.

Here is the issue TM. Slowly the overall deficit has grown due to a growth in deficit spending. We currently spend over 1.6 trillion in money that we have to borrow, we only take in 2 Trillion in revenue, meaning America costs around 3.6 Trillion to "stay afloat."

When you are spending this much money with forecasts of hitting 2 trillion in deficit spending in the not so distant future, one should ask them self... What happens when we hit another recession? We get 1-2 recessions every 10 years, so naturally there is concern that before we even "get out" of this recession we will be entering a new one due to the great length of this recession. At this point the US will not have even started paying down the money it *had* to borrow from China from the 2009 recession, not even looking back further at money that was borrowed.

So what happens then TM? You have 2 Trillion in deficit spending a year and you enter a new recession... Where do you go from there? 3 Trillion in yearly deficit spending? It would all work out if during the "good times" we paid down out debt, but we don't... In fact that's when we start even more welfare programs.

Clinton ran a deficit all 8 years, he never even came close to balancing the budget, Newt raided SS and the debt rolled over onto Bush, who continued to borrow and spend. This problem has been going on a long time, Republican and Democrat alike.

 

[Avorysuds]

It's not that easy to defeat a sitting president running for reelection. There have been 44 presidents of the U.S. Of those, the following who were elected for a first term lost their bid for a second term:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
William H. Taft
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George H.W. Bush

Nine out of 44 is not very good odds. As long as the economy continues to improve, Obama is almost sure to win reelection, no matter who the Republicans nominate.

What should be of more concern is the prospect of what low GOP voter turnout will do to the Congressional elections. There may be a real danger of the party losing the House.

The country has to collapse or enter some sort of civil war before we get rid of the Progressive movement, it's a tale as old as time. At some point the country will not be able to afford the deficit spending it needs to pretend it’s a legitimate country. Most of what we have in America from SS, MC, MC, welfare, wars and all this other shit programs in between we can’t afford, it’s a lie at best.

They project the deficit to be in the 30 Trillion in 10 years... This country is a joke.

 

[Truthmatters]

Government spending is spending.

Its part of the economy no matter how many convulsions you fools go through to claim it is not.

Now Why wont any of you give us an historical example of what you claim will work?

 

[Avorysuds]

Government spending is spending.

Its part of the economy no matter how many convulsions you fools go through to claim it is not.

Now Why wont any of you give us an historical example of what you claim will work?

Harding Coolidge..


/owned

/thread

BTW thanks for avoiding everything I said, as I knew you would. However my response to you was not really to you as I knew it was physically impossible for you to keep up and answer back honestly.


Like I said, we will have to have a collapse before we can solve this.

People like TM and RW are busy defending the UE number going down when the only reason it goes down is because 1.1 million people fell off the ass end and are no longer counted.

I called this over a year ago, it was the "genius" plan of the Obama Admin to start the 99ers. You float MILLIONS of people, UE goes up and just before the GE every month these MILLIONS fall off the ass end, making the UE number go down dramatically. The official UE number is not accurate nor real, but that won't stop people like RW, Rtard, Shaman, Chris, TM and so on.

It's entirely possible that UE in the next 1-2 years hits 4% while technically real UE goes well above 14%... This is not rocket science folks, when you don't count most of the people that are not employed whelp, then wtf is the purpose of pretending you have an UE number?

 

[Avorysuds]

lol@ “Government spending is spending.” Wtf does that even mean…

I guess it would “just be spending” if they didn’t have to borrow almost 50% of the money that they spend… What other organization on the planet can deficit spend, wait… No because you have to grow that deficit spending every years as well… So, what organization can grow their deficit spending every year for 20- 30- 40 – 50 years strait and not go under? None, not even Government. Don’t believe me, look around the world.

 

[Valox]

Lack of enthusiasm is bad news for the GOP. Iowa, New Hampshire, and Florida also saw a decline in voter turnout. Only South Carolina saw an increase in voter turnout from four years agao.

However, I am predicting that there will also be a lack of enthusiasm for Obama. Instead of running on Hope and Change, Obama is going to have to run on rationalizations. I could be wrong, but I don't expect Obama to carry the youth and minority votes like he did in 2008 due to the disillusionment of his pie-in-the sky rhetoric.

It will be interesting.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The country will get the president they deserve. This time around i don't want to hear a peep from the Obama supporters when he strips out the remaining civil liberties we once enjoyed in this country and turns that 15 trillion dollar debt into 20-25 trillion by 2016. If the dollar even makes it that far.

The Progressives will be killing off their elder relatives to save on cat food rations...and would still vote for Obama again

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The country will get the president they deserve. This time around i don't want to hear a peep from the Obama supporters when he strips out the remaining civil liberties we once enjoyed in this country and turns that 15 trillion dollar debt into 20-25 trillion by 2016. If the dollar even makes it that far.

Remember after Obama won the election and there was a run on ammunition? And people paid through the nose for it because "Obama was gonna take their guns" away?

And how long did that last? 2 years, before you clowns figured out he wasn't gonna take your guns and ammo away and prices finally dropped.


And if you don't like Obama's debt, you should have paid attention when George Bush rang up his tax cuts and wars on the national credit card. 1/5th of "Obama's" deficits are direct results of Bush policies.

Now don't you feel silly being WRONG about so many things?

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh isn't running.

Now don't you feel stupid?

 

[Zoom-boing]

The country will get the president they deserve. This time around i don't want to hear a peep from the Obama supporters when he strips out the remaining civil liberties we once enjoyed in this country and turns that 15 trillion dollar debt into 20-25 trillion by 2016. If the dollar even makes it that far.

Remember after Obama won the election and there was a run on ammunition? And people paid through the nose for it because "Obama was gonna take their guns" away?

And how long did that last? 2 years, before you clowns figured out he wasn't gonna take your guns and ammo away and prices finally dropped.


And if you don't like Obama's debt, you should have paid attention when George Bush rang up his tax cuts and wars on the national credit card. 1/5th of "Obama's" deficits are direct results of Bush policies.

Now don't you feel silly being WRONG about so many things?

Here's the chart Pelosi is pushing (oh, I see it's similar to yours):

The real picture:

The above chart is structured like Pelosi's chart. The major difference is that we’ve highlighted Congress since 1981, instead of the presidency. Of those sixteen Congresses, Democrats controlled the House nine times while Republicans controlled it seven times. While in power, the Democrats dramatically outspent the Republicans. The 471% increase in the debt during 18 years of Democratic control is staggeringly more than the 105% increase during 14 years of Republican control.

The stunning rise in the national debt since 2000 occurred under both Republican and Democratic leadership in the House and the presidency (my note: when the hell are people going to wake up and realize that BOTH parties are at fault, BOTH are to blame?). Neither party can claim a spotless record with regard to deficit spending and debt creation. Still, the degree to which the Democrats in Congress under President Obama’s leadership have engaged in both of these practices is frightening. The federal government will default on its debts if the public does not force those in power to cut back spending.

Who REALLY Increased the Debt? | FreedomWorks

 

[elvis]

And this is supposedly good news for bigots like the OP

 

[JoeB131]

It's not that easy to defeat a sitting president running for reelection. There have been 44 presidents of the U.S. Of those, the following who were elected for a first term lost their bid for a second term:

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
Chester A. Arthur
Grover Cleveland
William H. Taft
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George H.W. Bush

Nine out of 44 is not very good odds. As long as the economy continues to improve, Obama is almost sure to win reelection, no matter who the Republicans nominate.

What should be of more concern is the prospect of what low GOP voter turnout will do to the Congressional elections. There may be a real danger of the party losing the House.

And I would throw JQ Adams off the list because he lost the popular vote, as well as Harrison. Had 1888 been a popular vote, Cleveland would have won a second term, so we should take him off the list because he was robbed. (He did get a second term as the only guy to serve two non-consequetive terms.) I'd also take Adams off the list, because the method for picking a president was so convoluted before the 12th Amendment that we shouldn't even call it an election.

So, really, that brings our list down to five. - Van Buren, Taft, Hoover, Carter and G.W. Bush.

Now, except for Taft, all those guys had recessions (or Depressions or Panics, we keep changing the word). Three of them had to deal with third party challenges. Van Buren only won in 1836 because there was no unified opposition candidate. The Whigs ran FOUR presidential candidates. When he faced a single candidate in 1840, he lost.

 

[JoeB131]

And this is supposedly good news for bigots like the OP

It's not bigotry to call evil and stupid beliefs stupid and evil.

It's just honesty, man.

And they don't become less evil or less stupid because you slap vestments on them and call them a religion.

If Romney were so proud of his faith, he'd openly answer questions about it...

 

[del]