At hillary's Relaunch: They Were What?

[smitty]

 

Foolish for a gay wanting equal rights foolish for a immigrant wanting a better life. Foolish for etc etc. If the right believes screaming she's a liar she's this or that is a winning formula  they will lose . Prove to voters your views are better than hers for America and for them on a individual level. That's how you get votes making the voters feel like if you win they'll win. Obama gets reelected and the right still refuse to get the message. Focus on voters not hillary you'll have plenty time to do that head to head in the debates.

​No one focused on obama.  And you see what we got:  An inept community organizer that can't even buy a clue.  So, no, PAM, it's not wrong to focus on the individual.  And it doesn't matter who it is. 

[PAMFAM10]

​No one focused on obama.  And you see what we got:  An inept community organizer that can't even buy a clue.  So, no, PAM, it's not wrong to focus on the individual.  And it doesn't matter who it is. 

How can nobody focus on the president of the u.s. that's up for reelection. Smh they tried it didn't work. Admit it.

[Mr. Buddy Garrity]

​No one focused on obama.  And you see what we got:  An inept community organizer that can't even buy a clue.  So, no, PAM, it's not wrong to focus on the individual.  And it doesn't matter who it is. 

​you seem pretty damn focused on him. Didnt you start yet another thread about him 3hrs ago in regards to a book? 

[smitty]

How can nobody focus on the president of the u.s. that's up for reelection. Smh they tried it didn't work. Admit it.

​Heck, Hitler was elected.  And your point is?  I knew he was an empty suit.  The focus I'm talking is the vetting that should have went on the first time around.  Didn't happen.  Why was he reelected?  Two things:  Low Information Voters.  And a bad Republican candidate.  If we would have had a Reagan-ish type candidate, then it would have been 1980 all over again.  But, again, we get what we deserve! 

Edited June 18, 2015 by smitty

[PAMFAM10]

​Heck, Hitler was elected.  And your point is?  I knew he was an empty suit.  The focus I'm talking is the vetting that should have went on the first time around.  Didn't happen.  Why was he reelected?  Two things:  Low Information Voters.  And a bad Republican candidate.  If we would have had a Reagan-ish type candidate, then it would have been 1980 all over again.  But, again, we get what we deserve! 

So Dem win it's because of low information voters Republicans win it's because they had a Reagan - ish type candidate. That's your logic. What about W election and reelection. You believe low information voters only vote one way. Stop using excuses for you party failures. Your starting to sound like a low information voter (kool-aid drinker) It's not your party it's everybody else's fault. 

[77]

 

Foolish for a gay wanting equal rights foolish for a immigrant wanting a better life. Foolish for etc etc. If the right believes screaming she's a liar she's this or that is a winning formula  they will lose . Prove to voters your views are better than hers for America and for them on a individual level. That's how you get votes making the voters feel like if you win they'll win. Obama gets reelected and the right still refuse to get the message. Focus on voters not hillary you'll have plenty time to do that head to head in the debates.

​They lie to get elected and then they do not follow thru. Go back and check the record on Yobama!

[PAMFAM10]

How bout you go check your fellow Republicans records and get back at me.

​They lie to get elected and then they do not follow thru. Go back and check the record on 

[77]

What I dont understand is that Yobamas record on blacks in America such as more unemployed more out of the work force and more on govt. asst. how can anyone stand up and talk about how great he is. If this was a white pres. people would be livid mainly the media. guess maybe its because he is black?

[PAMFAM10]

What I dont understand is that Yobamas record on blacks in America such as more unemployed more out of the work force and more on govt. asst. how can anyone stand up and talk about how great he is. If this was a white pres. people would be livid mainly the media. guess maybe its because he is black?

Just keep wondering why.

[77]

I want to know because I may want to become black in the future and  I just want to know if I have to like his policies just because we are the same race or can I go against them for the benefit of my family! Trans racial you know it will probably be a right before long.  And good answer!

Edited June 18, 2015 by 77

[PAMFAM10]

I been answered your question like any other groups blacks voted for who they felt gave them a better future.  On criticism blacks often identify with the left so they will not publicly bash there candidate. Nothing with race (did you support bush because hes white) Hillary will get the same treatment. 

[77]

But everyone still supports Yobama even after his record which is terrible for the blacks.

[PAMFAM10]

because what other option they had he still ran on favorable outcomes for blacks but like I said Obama or not the dems will win minorities.  You cant tell people you choose to deport them and expect there vote cant tell half the country there takers and expect there vote. The numbers will never be there. 

[stevenash]

Believe it or not, there is still a group of people who understand things cant be free for too many for too long and so they keep attempting to operate in that manner.  Greece is a great example of the results of too much free stuff for too long a time.  They are now in no position to help those who are truly needy.  Don't you think it would be a shame if we waited that long to discover the "real cost" of too much free stuff?

[PAMFAM10]

Believe it or not, there is still a group of people who understand things cant be free for too many for too long and so they keep attempting to operate in that manner.  Greece is a great example of the results of too much free stuff for too long a time.  They are now in no position to help those who are truly needy.  Don't you think it would be a shame if we waited that long to discover the "real cost" of too much free stuff?

Thats the point but simply cutting it off is not the answer. Someone need to come up with a real solution to get More people working and not being dependent on the government. But like always no true solutions.

[stevenash]

well, the current "solution" certainly has not worked.  Why would you vote for an extension of the same?( I will give you a hint- more taxes and more regulations are not a prescription for lowering the welfare state)

Edited June 19, 2015 by stevenash

[77]

Poor people been voting democratic for 50 yrs. and their still poor. Remember what doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcome is .

[PAMFAM10]

Poor people been voting democratic for 50 yrs. and their still poor. Remember what doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcome is .

They been voting dem for 50 years but republicans had the white house majority of them years and yes they're still poor. 

[LumRaiderFan]

They been voting dem for 50 years but republicans had the white house majority of them years and yes they're still poor. 

​So why is anyone perennially poor...is it really the fault of a political party?

And if it is, who would it be...the party that wants to increase big business and create more jobs with lower taxes...

or the party that wants to continue to spoon feed entitlements paid for with higher taxes while creating roadblocks for business growth.

 

 

Edited June 19, 2015 by LumRaiderFan

[77]

Its gone up with the first black democratic president in office!

[PAMFAM10]

​So why is anyone perennially poor...is it really the fault of a political party?

And if it is, who would it be...the party that wants to increase big business and create more jobs with lower taxes...

or the party that wants to continue to spoon feed entitlements paid for with higher taxes while creating roadblocks for business growth.

 

 

Has it never gone up with a Republican president. 

[LumRaiderFan]

Has it never gone up with a Republican president. 

​If you are talking about taxes...yes it has...and it always will as long as we keep ballooning the fed gov...Republicans can't lower taxes without cutting spending.

Our problem is many of the folks that pay no taxes AND receive gov assistance are unaffected by a tax hike...and they vote.

No Republican that talks of cutting entitlements will get their vote.

Only problem is eventually, this path will become unsustainable and we will wind up like Greece, as stevenash pointed out earlier.

[PAMFAM10]

I'm asking has unemployment and the national debt went up during a Republican term.

[LumRaiderFan]

I'm asking has unemployment and the national debt went up during a Republican term.

​That varies because you can get overlap where one can claim he inherited a bad economy and vice versa.

Pure Republican policy if implemented would beat pure Democrat policy if implemented hands down...on the fed level we always get a mixture.

You can compare cities and states that have had Democratic policies for years against the same with Republican policies and you get a pretty good contrast.

When I say Rep and Dem I should say big gov higher taxes vs smaller gov lower taxes because you have some Republicans that should be Democrats, depending on which state they are in.

[smitty]

​So why is anyone perennially poor...is it really the fault of a political party?

And if it is, who would it be...the party that wants to increase big business and create more jobs with lower taxes...

or the party that wants to continue to spoon feed entitlements paid for with higher taxes while creating roadblocks for business growth.

 

 

​When you subsidize something -- you get more of it.  And when you socialize an individuals excess, you get less of it.

Edited June 20, 2015 by smitty