4

So as a hardcore liberal... I don't know who to support.
3911   88

  • SwimNerd
    0

    I hate Trump and I hate Hillary... I was a Bernie Sanders supporter... Now the only candidate left that is even close to impressing me is Gary Johnson and 99% of people don't even know who Gary Johnson is. I'm not a libertarian I don't even like Gary Johnson... But at least he's honest and not under investigation for all sorts of allegations of fraud and corruption. Unlike Trump and Hillary who are life long liars and frauds.

    When push comes to shove Hillary is going to get my vote... But I'm going to have to stifle my urge to vomit when I push the button in the booth.

    What do you guys think?


  • 3

    Can't we just let Obama serve until he's dead

    "What do you mean lower myself? That's the only thing I've ever been. Just a simple human that couldn't save a little girl" -Edward Elric


  • SwimNerd
    1

    Honestly... I wouldn't be against that...

    Or giving slick Willy a 3rd or 4th term...Bill Clinton is easily the best president in my lifetime and when I was born Reagan was president. Reagan was a complete hack compared to ole' Bill.


  • Banned
    1

    Vote for Trump. Anybody is better than Hillary.

    tha pirate king

    Posts: 728
    Registered: ‎11-10-2013
    Total Kudos Received: 74


  • Swimuminati
    0

    I think people need to get over themselves and realize politics is, at best, picking the lesser of two evils...vote for Hillary and lets get on with our lives, such as they are -_-*


  • Banned
    0

    xr250rDude said:

    Honestly... I wouldn't be against that...

    Or giving slick Willy a 3rd or 4th term...Bill Clinton is easily the best president in my lifetime and when I was born Reagan was president. Reagan was a complete hack compared to ole' Bill.

    Lol what? How could Clinton even remotely be considered a good president, explain that one. Reagan accomplished far more than Clinton.


  • SwimNerd
    0

    Mixboy said:

    I think people need to get over themselves and realize politics is, at best, picking the lesser of two evils...vote for Hillary and lets get on with our lives such as they are -_-*

    I already said if there is not other option I'm going to vote for Hillary... she's miles ahead of trump in terms of being a piece of shit. That's hardly a ringing endorsement though... So Trump is a flashy turd encrusted with diamonds and tanning spray, Hillary is an old fashioned turd with pieces of corn in it...

    When it comes down to it... They're both pieces of shit.


  • Swimuminati
    0

    xr250rDude said:

    Mixboy said:

    I think people need to get over themselves and realize politics is, at best, picking the lesser of two evils...vote for Hillary and lets get on with our lives such as they are -_-*

    I already said if there is not other option I'm going to vote for Hillary... she's miles ahead of trump in terms of being a piece of shit. That's hardly a ringing endorsement though... So Trump is a flashy turd encrusted with diamonds and tanning spray, Hillary is an old fashioned turd with pieces of corn in it...

    When it comes down to it... They're both pieces of shit.

    I take it this isn't the first time you've said your peace and despite my sincere plea it won't be the last -_-*


  • Banned
    0

    If you give me a choice between Hitler and Stalin, I'm going to be voting for a third option. Trying to play lesser of two evils between two evil incarnates is a ridiculous false choice.

    Hillary is a pathological liar, and criminal.
    Trump is a pathological liar, and con artist.

    Neither will cut spending or do a thing to get the debt under control.


  • Banned
    0

    How terrible, you are being violated in our guests mind sister.


  • Swimuminati
    0

    Hitler and Stalin???

    alt text


  • SwimPeanut
    0

    I'm sure your ballot will have a socialist on it under parties like, "Worker's World" or something similar.

    We're never going to have an honest election until EVERY party on the ballot gets equal coverage from the media.

    Ironically, the only way to make that happen would be to have everybody ignore the Republicrats and start voting in those extra parties.

    If you want to pick THAT type out of a crowd, just look for the festering scabs on their elbows.


  • SwimNerd
    2

    Bill Clinton ran the country in the most prosperous decade in our countries history and ran one of the only budget surpluses in the countries' history. He didn't start any wars with long lasting effects.

    What did Reagan do? End a communist regime that had been declining since its inception (Soviet Union)... Support terrorist nations and drug cartels (Iran Contra), undermine the Carter administration by prolonging the Iran hostage crisis so that he would seem like a hero, start the "war on drugs" one of if not the costliest policies in American history in terms of taxpayer dollars and lives ruined far beyond the damage of "prohibition" according to every expert in the field of drug enforcement... And last but not least by any means, introduce the idea of "reaganomics" or trickle down economics which has been proven to not only be inaccurate but a flat out lie. Reagan was a piece of shit...


  • SwimPeanut
    0

    xr250rDude said:

    Bill Clinton ran the country in the most prosperous decade in our countries history and ran one of the only budget surpluses in the countries' history. He didn't start any wars with long lasting effects.

    What did Reagan do? End a communist regime that had been declining since its inception (Soviet Union)... Support terrorist nations and drug cartels (Iran Contra), undermine the Carter administration by prolonging the Iran hostage crisis so that he would seem like a hero, start the "war on drugs" one of if not the costliest policies in American history in terms of taxpayer dollars and lives ruined far beyond the damage of "prohibition" according to every expert in the field of drug enforcement... And last but not least by any means, introduce the idea of "reaganomics" or trickle down economics which has been proven to not only be inaccurate but a flat out lie. Reagan was a piece of shit...

    A budget surplus is when the debt is zero and there's actually a tangible asset remaining after all the recurrent expenses are paid. Did that happen under Clinton? It didn't. There was no surplus under Clinton. You're only looking at some tinkering with the interest rate so that a little bit less money was being paid toward the debt.

    If you want to pick THAT type out of a crowd, just look for the festering scabs on their elbows.


  • Banned
    0

    He ran the country during the tech boom, which burst during his last year in office. He also took over after 12 years of Reagan/Bush who basically laid the groundwork for 30 years of economic expansion after turning around the Carter era economy.

    Not to mention rebuilding the military and that whole Soviet collapse thing. That was big news.

    The start of the housing bubble also began under his watch.

    And no, he never had a surplus. The national debt increased every single year he was president.

    Oh, and he was Impeached.

    He also decided against getting Bin Laden. Good call on that one eh?

    And he's also probably a rapist. That's probably noteworthy.


  • SwimPeanut
    0

    Lewinsky was just a distraction from the sexual harassment charge brought by Paula Jones. To hear Paula tell the story, Bill Clinton is indeed a predator.

    If you want to pick THAT type out of a crowd, just look for the festering scabs on their elbows.


  • 0

    Reagan and Bush ran the economy into the ground it didn't start to improve until Clinton's second term
    Oh yeah and he wasn't impeached
    They tried to have him impeached but guess what he wasn't


  • SwimNerd
    1

    1938_Packard said:

    xr250rDude said:

    Bill Clinton ran the country in the most prosperous decade in our countries history and ran one of the only budget surpluses in the countries' history. He didn't start any wars with long lasting effects.

    What did Reagan do? End a communist regime that had been declining since its inception (Soviet Union)... Support terrorist nations and drug cartels (Iran Contra), undermine the Carter administration by prolonging the Iran hostage crisis so that he would seem like a hero, start the "war on drugs" one of if not the costliest policies in American history in terms of taxpayer dollars and lives ruined far beyond the damage of "prohibition" according to every expert in the field of drug enforcement... And last but not least by any means, introduce the idea of "reaganomics" or trickle down economics which has been proven to not only be inaccurate but a flat out lie. Reagan was a piece of shit...

    A budget surplus is when the debt is zero and there's actually a tangible asset remaining after all the recurrent expenses are paid. Did that happen under Clinton? It didn't. There was no surplus under Clinton. You're only looking at some tinkering with the interest rate so that a little bit less money was being paid toward the debt.

    You're an idiot...

    A budget is an annual expenditure limit... The national debt is a completely different thing. The country hasn't been debt free since before the revolution and it never will be. Having a debt is what gives our country's currency its value.

    If we didn't have a debt no one would give a shit about us... We'd be like Zimbabwe or some other impoverished 3rd world nation.


  • Banned
    0

    A budget surplus is when the debt is zero and there's actually a tangible asset remaining after all the recurrent expenses are paid. Did that happen under Clinton? It didn't. There was no surplus under Clinton. You're only looking at some tinkering with the interest rate so that a little bit less money was being paid toward the debt.

    Actually the phantom surplus didn't have anything to do with interest rates. A guy named Craig Steiner wrote a great article on this years ago called "The myth of the Clinton surplus" which explains the tortured logic they used to call it a surplus even while the national debt was increasing every single year.

    http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

    Which is a complete contradiction. If you have a surplus, you're making money. Not losing it.

    The short version is, the CBO counts money they take from social security and other trust funds as income, when it's actually borrowed money. They can also "off budget" anything they want to make deficits look smaller. And they do every year. The reported CBO deficit is always smaller than the actual deficit.

    The treasury, which is actually responsible for real money, does not do this, for obvious reasons.

    FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion

    This was the only year we really came close to breaking even during the Clinton era, and we still fell 18 bil short.


  • Banned
    0

    JeNewBee said:

    Reagan and Bush ran the economy into the ground it didn't start to improve until Clinton's second term
    Oh yeah and he wasn't impeached
    They tried to have him impeached but guess what he wasn't

    You're wrong, and very very stupid. Economic growth during the Reagan years was extremely high. No one thinks Reagan "ran the economy into the ground." Why would you even make that up?

    And yes, Clinton was impeached.
    Lead Story

    1998
    President Clinton impeached

    "After nearly 14 hours of debate, the House of Representatives approves two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, charging him with lying under oath to a federal grand jury and obstructing justice. Clinton, the second president in American history to be impeached, vowed to finish his term."

    Are you Hillary Clinton? You sure lie like she does.


  • SwimNerd
    1

    Again... That article is a misinterpretation of the facts. No one claimed that the debt went down... Just that the budget was met with a surplus.

    The amount that was estimated and that congress approved was more than what was actually spent... Therefore there was money leftover.

    That's a surplus.

    That's as easy to understand as economics can get... It can't get more simple than that.


Log in to reply