When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@hawkeye10,

Why are Liberals so unwilling to deal with that rather large group that has the unfortunate combination of the sloth gene and lack of needs/wants?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Conservatives often confuse often with always.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Quote:
Conservatives are often people born on third base...bragging about having hit a triple!

This is the last desperate plea of someone who doesn't have a clue about how things work.

Ahhhh...so you see this as desperation...and from someone who doesn't have a clue about how things work.

Jesus H. Christ. Please do better than that.

Quote:

It is people who were born on thrid base and didn't have to work for something who think the system is broken.

You think someone who dropped out of school because they didn't want to learn can blame the system for their own poor choices. They have been working at McD's for 6 years and the system is at fault for their lack of skills or ability to climb the working ladder?

See I can provide proof that the system works, you can't provide proof that it doesn't. In your mind it is broke, in reality people are making it, if they try. Crying on the streets for more money and not doing anything to increase your own value as an employee is the problem in this country.

Keep supporting the barons. They are counting on people like you. You will finally get the full picture when they come to piss on you.

Anyway...it appears Hillary will be the Dem candidate...and I will vote for her. If she is not the candidate...I will vote against the candidate of the R's, because the R's simply do not have a clue!

We do not have to hate each other for that, Baldimo. I'm just telling you how I feel...and you are telling me how you feel.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

What they are contributing to is their bank account in Switzerland in order to beat the U S tax code.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Is it ok if I hate the stupidity they indulge in?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Absolutely, Rabel.

I just feel sorry that they are not able to see the situation for what it is.

But there have always been people willing to die for the King to have his barons...and for the King to be King because GOD decreed it.

Sad.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

The GDP was 55% of what? How does a positive percentage make something negative?

You don't even understand what you are trying to talk about. You use words you obviously have no clue as to their meaning.

I love how you consider Reagan's tripling of the debt to be desperation so you excuse him but you blame attack Clinton for bringing the debt down as a percentage of the GDP.

Your game of playing "the economist" is over... ha ha ha...

Tell me, how Hillary Clinton will balance the budget?

If by any chance you have studied economy, then your teachers taught you crap and you must go back to school to sue them.

For your information, because ignorance drives your mental vehicle, one of the main priorities of any administration is to balance the budget.

Obama has failed miserably, he is the worst of the worst presidents ever, (check the chart I have posted several times) and Hillary Clinton has not any initiative to balance the budget, she is another failure already.

Balancing the budget is "taboo" for you, right?

So, my dear pseudo-economist, confront reality, your game is over.

You have an "F" in economy.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The most obvious is that she would be the candidate of the Dem's...a party that promotes the kinds of programs I want to see protected and expanded.

Then you are not going for Hillary Clinton, you are going for a political party regardless of who is the leader.

Nothing wrong with that.

But your opinions must be more specific, like saying that you support any Democrat for the US presidency because Democrats promote programs that you like.

Lets go to the person itself.

Why Hillary, according to you, is much much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as Republican?

Please specify.

My regards.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Quote:

But your opinions must be more specific, like saying that you support any Democrat for the US presidency because Democrats promote programs that you like.

It is not something I "must" do...but it is something I have done.

Up above I wrote:

Quote:

Anyway...it appears Hillary will be the Dem candidate...and I will vote for her. If she is not the candidate...I will vote against the candidate of the R's, because the R's simply do not have a clue!

Is that honestly not clear enough for you, Carlos?

Quote:

Why Hillary, according to you, is much much better than any candidate who would be willing to run as Republican?

Please specify.

Because I consider the R candidates to be totally out of touch...and to have no clue whatever. I consider the R candidates to be either part of the elite...or dupes of the elite.

I think Hillary will USE the elites to gain the presidency...and I would expect her to do so. I am not like some of the liberals here (I am not a liberal) who want to see her handicap herself...and give the R candidate full access to the money and to take none for herself.

I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

If I may answer, such as my answer counts for anything. I think the reason Hillary so far is better than any other democratic candidate is because she has the most widely known name in the field. She has been in politics so long there is no dark horse mystery to her, anywhere. By this time, Obama had already had name recognition when he spoke at the democrat convention before 2008 election cycle really began. No one else so far has that name recognition or even appeal which Hillary enjoys right now for whatever reason.

2 Replies

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

If I may answer, such as my answer counts for anything. I think the reason Hillary so far is better than any other democratic candidate is because she has the most widely known name in the field. She has been in politics so long there is no dark horse mystery to her, anywhere. By this time, Obama had already had name recognition when he spoke at the democrat convention before 2008 election cycle really began. No one else so far has that name recognition or even appeal which Hillary enjoys right now for whatever reason.

We all remember how Fred Thompson for months polled very well for a POTUS run based upon name recognition, but after he actually entered the race and showed his incompetence he went no where. Polls this far out are meaningless.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

One would study economics, not economy.

The last President to balance a budget was a Clinton.
The last President to reduce the deficit is named Obama. Prior to that the previous President to reduce the deficit was named Clinton.

Quote:

one of the main priorities of any administration is to balance the budget.

That is interesting but completely ignored by every GOP President since Nixon.

How quickly you forget Cheney saying "deficits don't matter."

So, tell us exactly why you support the party that has never balanced a budget since the 1950s and has done more to drive up the debt than the other party?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So, tell us exactly why you support the party that has never balanced a budget since the 1950s and has done more to drive up the debt than the other party?

R governors almost always present balanced budgets.

Your argument fails the sniff test.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Fred Thompson only broke 30 in one poll. He spent much of the time in the teens or lower 20s. Guilliani had better polling numbers than Thompson but decided he could skip the first few states.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

All governors present balanced budgets. It's a requirement of being a governor. Your argument is a red herring.

1 Reply

@parados,

Where is it written that governors have to present balanced budgets?

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Baldimo wrote:

Where is it written that governors have to present balanced budgets?

In their respective state constitutions. Wikipedia informs us about this on its page about balanced-budget amendments: "Every U.S. State other than Vermont has some form of balanced budget provision that applies to its operating budget." Hence, outside of Vermont, state legislatures and governors have no choice but to balance their budgets. Consequently, Hawkeye's "smell test" of Republican governors tells us nothing about the fiscal policies Republicans pursue when they do have a choice.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Hawkeye's "smell test" of Republican governors tells us nothing about the fiscal policies Republicans pursue when they do have a choice.

You cant tar the entire party for a failure to balance budgets when most of the party does balance budgets. And you have no evidence that state R's dont want to balance budgets and yet you assume that they dont. The only thing that can possible be said it the "Washington R's" dont have an interest in balanced budgets.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You cant tar the entire party for a failure to balance budgets when most of the party does balance budgets.

Then it's a good thing I wasn't tarring the Republican party. It's your smell test I was tarring --- it's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

hawkeye10 wrote:

And you have no evidence that state R's dont want to balance budgets and yet you assume that they dont.

Indeed I don't, but so what? This thread is about a federal presidential election. And whatever fiscal policy Republican state governors truly want is irrelevant to the policies Republican presidents will pursue on the federal level. The only evidence on that comes from the federal budgets signed by George W. Bush, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and the Republican presidents before them.

And what does this evidence tell us? From the end of World War 2 to Carter, all US presidents, whatever their party, signed more-or-less balanced budgets. Afterwards, beginning with Reagan, Republican presidents have signed budgets with large and growing deficits, whereas Democratic presidents signed budgets with surpluses or shrinking deficits. Recent history, then, gives us every reason to believe that the Republican nominee, if elected president, will be fiscally irresponsible compared to the Democratic nominee.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Everyone knew him as an actor, but when he started talking politics the people saw how incompetent he is and dropped him like a hot poker. The problem for the republicans at this time is all their candidates are incompetent. And most are downright stupid.

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know