Democrats outperform Republicans across the board

[tuhaybey]

You're a retard.

Says the guy who thinks we should vote Republican despite the economic record because.... stfu you stupid commie!

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's been 23 days now and still nobody has managed to come up with a single economic measure that Republican policies perform better under. The election is coming up. Is it safe to say that we all agree that Democratic policies perform better then?

You're a retard.

LOL, You're the retard. Of course that's why you are a Republican apologist, and why the former GOP covets you. Easy to manipulate you are the best bet for a Republican victory. No amount of evidence can persuade you to question the dogma you have been fed by the propagandists or the leaders of your party (watch, he'll deny he's a Republican, the usual safe harbor for closeted Republicans is to claim being independent, even when every post they make proves that is who they support) such as Boehner, Eric 'the weasel' and McConnell (what have they done to make the US safer and it economy stronger? Just say no has been as effective as it was on the work on drugs).

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're a retard.

Says the guy who thinks we should vote Republican despite the economic record because.... stfu you stupid commie!

Suggesting RKMBrown thinks is to give him too much credit. There is no evidence to support that theory.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Critical thinkers and users of empirical data, which leaves out almost all of the far right on the Board and most of the far left here, always out perform others.

One of the sure tricks is watching one of the reactionary far righties claim to be mainstream, or make an opinion then demand you rebut it with evidence that s/he won't accept it.

 

[RKMBrown]

You're a retard.

Says the guy who thinks we should vote Republican despite the economic record because.... stfu you stupid commie!

Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.

 

[tuhaybey]

Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.

You are a Ted Cruz supporter, right? Were you aware of which party Mr. Cruz is in?

I don't really care about your weird inter-faction squabbles. Tea Party, Republican, whatever, you're all the same thing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who said anything about voting republican? Oh yeah you did, ya fucking retard.

You are a Ted Cruz supporter, right? Were you aware of which party Mr. Cruz is in?

I don't really care about your weird inter-faction squabbles. Tea Party, Republican, whatever, you're all the same thing.

No, I don't like Ted Cruz. Don't trust him at all. My inter-faction squabbles? WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?

 

[tuhaybey]

No, I don't like Ted Cruz. Don't trust him at all. My inter-faction squabbles? WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?

Um:

There are a few good pubs, Rubio, Cruz... but really most of the republican leaders are decidedly socialist. Bohner? Really? Bush? McCain? Romney? WTF?

 

[RKMBrown]

No, I don't like Ted Cruz. Don't trust him at all. My inter-faction squabbles? WTF are you talking about? Are you smoking weed or something?

Um:

There are a few good pubs, Rubio, Cruz... but really most of the republican leaders are decidedly socialist. Bohner? Really? Bush? McCain? Romney? WTF?

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

 

[tuhaybey]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

 

[RKMBrown]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

 

[tuhaybey]

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

I really don't care about your internal faction squabbles. If you want to call yourself a Republican or a teabagger or a "libertarian" (that isn't really what libertarian means, but most Republicans misuse the term) or an "independent" who just happens to always vote Republican or a "constitutionalist" who just votes Republican, or whatever else you want to call yourselves, I couldn't care less.

 

[RKMBrown]

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

I really don't care about your internal faction squabbles. If you want to call yourself a Republican or a teabagger or a "libertarian" (that isn't really what libertarian means, but most Republicans misuse the term) or an "independent" who just happens to always vote Republican or a "constitutionalist" who just votes Republican, or whatever else you want to call yourselves, I couldn't care less.

I'm not republican, or independent, and the tea party is not a political party. I rarely vote republican. Most republicans are way to socialist for me. I vote for the person on the ticket that is for liberty.

 

[candycorn]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

Gee, you're once again in an argument with a stranger on the Internet. I know...I know...it's the other guy who has the problem...right?

 

[RKMBrown]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

Gee, you're once again in an argument with a stranger on the Internet. I know...I know...it's the other guy who has the problem...right?

My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you. You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.

 

[candycorn]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

Gee, you're once again in an argument with a stranger on the Internet. I know...I know...it's the other guy who has the problem...right?

My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you. You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.

The only thing you have in your pockets is likely you're crying towel and a crack pipe....no interest in either.

 

[RKMBrown]

He's good for pubs... as far as that goes. I don't trust any pubs. I'm libertarian. I put cruz in with clinton... both appear to like our country.. Clinton was good for the country and the dems, but both clinton and cruz are pretty much in it for themselves.

If you think John Boehner is a "socialist" that means you're a teabagger. There is no ambiguity there. In fact, just by the time you get to the point where you start calling anybody (other than an actual socialist) a "socialist," that means you're a teabagger.

I don't tea bag, you POS sexual deviant. And Boehner is a cry baby socialist.

Gee, you're once again in an argument with a stranger on the Internet. I know...I know...it's the other guy who has the problem...right?

My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you. You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.

The only thing you have in your pockets is likely you're crying towel and a crack pipe....no interest in either.

How would you know there is a pipe in my pocket, no sweetie that's not a crack pipe in your hand.

 

[tuhaybey]

My problem with this guy is the same problem I have with you. You wont get your grubby little hands out of my pockets.

Hands out of your pockets? Did you not read this thread at all? It is about how to get more money into your pockets, not less....

 

[turtledude]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

 

[candycorn]

Democratic leaders consistently trounce Republicans by pretty much every objective measure of performance. That is true at the state and federal level and regardless of whether we are talking about the legislative or executive branch.

For example, consider GDP growth by the party of the federal government:


Note that at present, we are on that green column and we're almost exactly on the average of 2.9%.

Or, consider the change in unemployment rate by the party of the president:


Or, the stock market performance by the party of the president:


Not convinced yet? How about:

Median income of red and blue states
Life expectancy of red and blue states
Gun death rates in red and blue states
Graduate degrees per capita in red and blue states
GDP growth relative to world GDP growth
Change in personal income by party of president
Patents filed per capita of red and blue states
Top 20 years for GDP growth since 1930 by party
Etc., etc., etc.

So, what I am wondering is why anybody votes Republican. Are Republicans just looking at different measures of success? If so, please post them. Or, is the issue that Republicans just aren't looking at which party's policies work out better at all?

then why do Democrats pander to the unperformers while the GOP caters to the successful?

Examples?