At this point, I believe Bernie Sanders could be an excellent choice as he seems to be a good man, but I've not spent a lot of time checking out his positions on the important issues, yet.
Therefore, if he would actually be a good president, he probably won't get the nomination, right?
That pretty much leaves Clinton as the ONLY candidate on either side with any real experience with international politics and the knowledge and connections to actually get things done.
So you think a country that has literally taken on so much debt, while printing paper money to the point where it will soon be worthless, needs yet another liberal minded leader that will create unnecessary government programs, furthering the fall into socialism? And over burdening the already over taxed middle class?
I really wish you'd do the tiniest bit of research before you post this sort of thing on a public forum, because it comes off as terribly ignorant.
Over the last half a dozen administrations or so, I think you would find that the Democratic administrations spent much of their time in office repairing the financial devastation left them by their predecessors, and some, like Clinton, actually came close to reducing the national debt completely.
Of course, you wouldn't know this if all you do is parrot the GOP line and/or the tea party drivel.
It's just like the GOP's constant harping on cutting social security, which is completely independent of the national budget. Privatizing the MOST successful government program in this nation's history won't put one thin dime into the national budget, just the pockets of the banks and institutions that would manage it into nonexistence.
Sorry, these are easily found facts, not opinions, but I'm sure you will have more unsubstantiated prattle with which you will refute them, anyway.
Clinton has a good politician, but Newt Gingerich was the real reason why the budget was balanced. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Clinton was smart enough to work with the Republicans to cut spending. Clinton, of course, took all of the credit for the balanced budget, but he never would have even attempted doing this if Newt Gingerich hadn't been Speaker of the House.
But I do agree that Clinton was not a spendthrift. Jimmy Carter and Obama, on the other hand, spent every dollar they could and taxed the hell out of everyone!
I am not arguing with you in the least, but I love how when things go well the credit gets shared, but when things don't, it's all the president's fault.
But my income is derived from there and I pay taxes there, so what the fuck does where I LIVE have to do with anything?
That is a truly ignorant remark!
Who would you vote for in 2016?
← View full post
At this point, I believe Bernie Sanders could be an excellent choice as he seems to be a good man, but I've not spent a lot of time checking out his positions on the important issues, yet.
Therefore, if he would actually be a good president, he probably won't get the nomination, right?
That pretty much leaves Clinton as the ONLY candidate on either side with any real experience with international politics and the knowledge and connections to actually get things done.
--
thegvpsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
5
5
-
Faggots_should_die
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
Gawd, im going to have a massive heart attack when Trump wins
So you think a country that has literally taken on so much debt, while printing paper money to the point where it will soon be worthless, needs yet another liberal minded leader that will create unnecessary government programs, furthering the fall into socialism? And over burdening the already over taxed middle class?
Oh that's right, you don't actually live here.
--
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
4
4
-
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
thegvpsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I really wish you'd do the tiniest bit of research before you post this sort of thing on a public forum, because it comes off as terribly ignorant.
Over the last half a dozen administrations or so, I think you would find that the Democratic administrations spent much of their time in office repairing the financial devastation left them by their predecessors, and some, like Clinton, actually came close to reducing the national debt completely.
Of course, you wouldn't know this if all you do is parrot the GOP line and/or the tea party drivel.
It's just like the GOP's constant harping on cutting social security, which is completely independent of the national budget. Privatizing the MOST successful government program in this nation's history won't put one thin dime into the national budget, just the pockets of the banks and institutions that would manage it into nonexistence.
Sorry, these are easily found facts, not opinions, but I'm sure you will have more unsubstantiated prattle with which you will refute them, anyway.
--
Rick_Bawls
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Clinton has a good politician, but Newt Gingerich was the real reason why the budget was balanced. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, Clinton was smart enough to work with the Republicans to cut spending. Clinton, of course, took all of the credit for the balanced budget, but he never would have even attempted doing this if Newt Gingerich hadn't been Speaker of the House.
But I do agree that Clinton was not a spendthrift. Jimmy Carter and Obama, on the other hand, spent every dollar they could and taxed the hell out of everyone!
--
thegypsysailor
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I am not arguing with you in the least, but I love how when things go well the credit gets shared, but when things don't, it's all the president's fault.
But my income is derived from there and I pay taxes there, so what the fuck does where I LIVE have to do with anything?
That is a truly ignorant remark!
Look i can't help it that i am a huge moron ok ?!