Democratic Debates

[Lacius]

Why is the LGBTQ issue a real issue to you? Are you part of the LGBTQ group? Other than for political purposes how are you effected by the issue? If the Liberals weren't using the issue and the LGBTQ group as political pawns would you even be concerned with them? I'd like an answer to each question.

See my last response to you. I don't find it a valuable use of my time to continue our conversation if you're not going to concede when shown you're demonstrably wrong about simple facts.

1. You said under Obama, we had an economic decline, and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. We can fact-check this. You're wrong. The economy improved dramatically under Obama, as did job growth. When Trump took office, job growth didn't change much, and he's done little to nothing to improve the economy. See the month-to-month job additions attached to this post.
2. You said Democratic policies prevented growth, and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy. You're wrong. That's not what happened at all. Economies tend to do better under Democratic presidents, actually. It only takes a basic understanding of economics to know that tax breaks for the rich do little, if anything, to stimulate an economy.

I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one. You like to frame the conversation your way when things aren't going well for you (e.g. randomly bringing up Antifa when I never mentioned it or moving backwards to a previous topic on LGBT rights), but I'm uninterested in how you want to move this conversation. Concede or don't bother tagging me.

 

[tatripp]

I want to understand how conservatives see the debates. I am Just asking people what they thought on all sides of the spectrum. If its you feel its out of place no need to answer. I am just trying to understand how conservatives from all angles of the right see this. Your answer seemed honest and earnest so it got me curious.



ive seen pages and pages of discussion of this forum lean towards the right... so i am not sure about the 95% number

I'm conservative. My opinion is that the person who won the debates was Trump. Most of it was absolutely embarrassing. The pandering was just sad. The ideas were incoherent; they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together. Harris was shameless and dishonest in attacking Biden. I think Biden has a legitimate chance of beating Trump because people know what to expect from him and he is the only Democrat who has a chance of winning who isn't completely pandering to the far left nuts of the party. Biden actually has a chance at winning the blue collar workers that Hillary ignored. I respect Bernie's honesty even though I think that all of his ideas are completely based on emotion. I think Warren played it relatively smart and safe.
If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Andrew Yang. He's honest and sincere, but no one cares about him. He can actually listen to the other side of an argument and doesn't just accuse people of being a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe.

Thanks for keeping this post civil.

 

[Lacius]

they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together.

Why don't you think they make sense together?

 

[SG854]

The polling in 2016 was fairly accurate. What ended up actually happening was only slightly to the right of the polls and was well within the margins of error. You have to remember that Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes (pretty much where she was in the polls), and Trump won the Electoral College by only 78,000 votes.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the polling showed Clinton ahead by narrow margins in 2016. While a lot can happen between now and the 2020 election, Biden and others are far more ahead of Trump in the head-to-head polls than Clinton was.

She won the popular vote but Trump won more counties.

Trump won 2,626
Hilary won 487


This should put into perspective why Trump won. He spoke to the working class promising jobs. To counties that were hurting loosing jobs to automation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

 

[Lacius]

She won the popular vote but Trump won more counties.

Trump won 2,626
Hilary won 487


This should put into perspective why Trump won. He spoke to the working class promising jobs. To counties that were hurting loosing jobs to automation.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-clinton-counties-won/

You can read the Snopes article you linked to for why the number of counties a candidate won is largely irrelevant to how well a candidate did. Counties vary wildly in population. Obama only won ~680 counties in 2012, for example.

Counting counties is mostly just counting rural areas, which is another way of saying you're counting Republican areas. It's largely meaningless.

 

[tatripp]

Why don't you think they make sense together?

I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.

 

[Lacius]

I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.

Illegal immigration would still be illegal, and there would still be deportations, if Section 1325 were repealed (which I think you're referring to). They were talking about making the illegal border crossing itself no longer illegal.

As for health care costs, you act as though immigrants don't pay taxes already. And regardless, I don't think we should be a country that allows anyone here to not be able to receive basic healthcare.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

they said they would keep it as a civil offense instead of a criminal one. This is still grounds for getting deported.
The reality is though if people have hard stances on this issue they already have chosen a side on this if you ask me.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm conservative. My opinion is that the person who won the debates was Trump. Most of it was absolutely embarrassing. The pandering was just sad. The ideas were incoherent; they all wanted illegal immigrants to get free medicaid but they also wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. These two ideas make no sense together. Harris was shameless and dishonest in attacking Biden. I think Biden has a legitimate chance of beating Trump because people know what to expect from him and he is the only Democrat who has a chance of winning who isn't completely pandering to the far left nuts of the party. Biden actually has a chance at winning the blue collar workers that Hillary ignored. I respect Bernie's honesty even though I think that all of his ideas are completely based on emotion. I think Warren played it relatively smart and safe.
If I had to vote for one of them, I would vote for Andrew Yang. He's honest and sincere, but no one cares about him. He can actually listen to the other side of an argument and doesn't just accuse people of being a racist/sexist/xenophobe/homophobe.

Thanks for keeping this post civil.

So then i ask of you... would you say your vote is already hardlocked for the next election? This is something that has received interesting answers thus far.

 

[cots]

See my last response to you. I don't find it a valuable use of my time to continue our conversation if you're not going to concede when shown you're demonstrably wrong about simple facts.

1. You said under Obama, we had an economic decline, and it wasn't until the Republicans took over that it bounced back. We can fact-check this. You're wrong. The economy improved dramatically under Obama, as did job growth. When Trump took office, job growth didn't change much, and he's done little to nothing to improve the economy. See the month-to-month job additions attached to this post.
2. You said Democratic policies prevented growth, and we saw a decline in jobs and the overall economy. You're wrong. That's not what happened at all. Economies tend to do better under Democratic presidents, actually. It only takes a basic understanding of economics to know that tax breaks for the rich do little, if anything, to stimulate an economy.

I'm holding your feet to the fire on this one. You like to frame the conversation your way when things aren't going well for you (e.g. randomly bringing up Antifa when I never mentioned it or moving backwards to a previous topic on LGBT rights), but I'm uninterested in how you want to move this conversation. Concede or don't bother tagging me.

Taken out of context and looking at just the raw numbers you're correct in your statement, but if you look at the bigger picture (see the link I gave you previously), your statement is wrong. It's like saying that something today costs more than something 20 years ago, but not taking into account inflation.

The recession, caused by both policies that Clinton and Bush put into place was stopped shortly after Obama took office, mainly due to bipartisan efforts to get us out of it. If you look at just the growth during this time, taken out of context, then under Obama, more jobs were created at first, but then leveled out. If you take into account the other variables mentioned in the article I linked to we have better growth and more jobs under the current administration than the previous, plus things haven't gotten worse.

I addresses your questions, now are you going to answer each one I asked about your position on the LGBTQ non-issue?

I should've been more clear. They don't make economic sense together. You can't incentivize illegal immigration by making it legal and then give them free healthcare. That will be outrageously expensive.

The Democratic leadership doesn't care about how much something else would cost the general public and only justifies monetary sums when it's the Right talking about spending. If it's an issue they are pushing then the cost should be irrelevant, but if it's an opposing issue then suddenly the cost should be taken into consideration.

The goal with having out country overrun by illegal aliens that will vote Blue is so their leadership can sit back, in power, with all sorts of money, while the rich and the middle class are forced to spend their income sustaining the illegals, therefor making us all having the same income level, which would mean, we'd all be living in poverty while they fly around in their million dollar jets talking about how we need to take care of the climate, but set no sort of example themselves.

So then i ask of you... would you say your vote is already hardlocked for the next election? This is something that has received interesting answers thus far.

Nothing is written in stone. Trying to predict an election is like trying to predict the weather with interference from the spectrum that 5G uses. Polls and the general consensus was that Hillary would win, but that didn't happen. Rest assured you, if one of the Democratic candidates win, suddenly, the Left will have no problem with the electoral college. I'm not sure who I will vote for yet. I don't think voting straight down your own party line makes any sort of logical sense, nor do I belong to either party, so my mind isn't made up yet.

As for health care costs, you act as though immigrants don't pay taxes already. And regardless, I don't think we should be a country that allows anyone here to not be able to receive basic healthcare.

Sure, a lot of them pay taxes, like sales taxes, using the money they are being given for free, out of my taxes or the money they are making by human smuggling or running drugs. Not to mention the free housing, health care and food assistance they are receiving for simply being here illegally and not working or coming here illegally and using one or more childen as an anchors. Some of them have illegitimate jobs (working at legal businesses, illegally) which they shouldn't have to begin with, so some of those might be paying taxes using stolen identities, but the majority of illegal immigrants cost legal citizens a lot more money then they're putting back into the economy as for every one you have paying some sort of tax there's more leeching off of the system.

 

[Clydefrosch]

Your COMMENTARY from investors.com compares obamas recovery to reagans recovery in substantially different economic and political contexts. Which is ironic, since it seems to put so much emphasis on the idea of context.

The argument: Population grew more under obama so his job numbers should've grown much higher... sounds kinda dumb since a) children usually don't join the labour force until their late teens and that number speaks nothing of the population growth 14-18 years prior, the relevant one to maybe look at if you wanna go this weirdly round about way. Why not look at the number of actual able bodied, working age people? Knowing my statistic hustlers, probably because that didn't make it seem like the numbers were bad. But that's just assuming.

and b) putting all that aside, more people currently spent time on education before even entering the labor force than like I wanna say 40 years ago under reagan? So the relevance between current population growth and job numbers is kinda flimsy at best.

Second, the context of time, it was supposedly easier to make jobnumbers grow when they were way down, compared to when they're further up.
While historically, Reagan himself is the best example of that being true (the legendary 1,1 million jobs in one month myth being the result of a ~700.000 person strong decline of people on payroll caused by a temporary strike one month before in i wanna say the communications sector, which were counted towards the job growth the following month as they stopped striking and were added to the payroll again) but despite that, I wanna say that one is debatable in general. It's not like the us economy just has literally no room to grow further, there's no magical barrier capping it out right now. THere's physical room for it, the us is mostly empty wasteland still. There's wealth in the hands of supposed capitalists/investors, and there's definitely enough work force to exploit for profit and since this whole thing is a circle, if you pay more people, there's more people to buy your crap/service.

Little is truly preventing it from expanding and creating more jobs. There's stuff like ever increasing student debt preventing a new generation from trying their hand and risky entrepreneur stuff and capping potential sales of whatever right now and of course there's automation to look forward too, increasing opportunistic costs of employing people today when just tomorrow, a cool machine could make people unnecessary. But that can be solved politically with a tax on not employing actual people. Looking at policy and it's ability to create incentives or kill incentives to work against the population for profit, it wouldn't be hard to make those job numbers explode even today, if you wanted. That tax cut nonsense from 2 years ago? The money lost there could've created job growth to -actually- blow obamas out of the water for real.

Third from the COMMENTARY labor participation changing.
Yes, that's personally the weirdest one in my book, because it makes it sound like people weren't dropping out of the work force during reagans time or today under trump.


Overall, that investors.com COMMENTARY seems like it was hurriedly thrown out to obfuscate reality by making a needlessly complex argument where 'context' could as well translate to 'shit i can say that you wouldn't check anyways, because you're either too lazy or too stupid to do it right'

As for your constant persistence that things kept going on under trump with no major declines, again, context. He inherited a system that would've continued to grow with a monkey and a magic 8-ball in charge.
The surprising thing isn't that it continued on like before, but that the needlessly expensive for all americans trade wars and the stock market still dumping around at early 2018 levels (they pretty much all peaked out the day before trump discovered and promptly misunderstood the concept of a trad war and tariffs) with no major growth since then, have not managed to bring it all crashing down again -yet-.

 

[leon315]

here's another funny story about Coal and the consequence who vote Orange man, by Olive John

 

[Lacius]

Taken out of context and looking at just the raw numbers you're correct in your statement

I'm uninterested in this kind of half-assed nonconcession. The context is you said the economy did worse under Obama and that jobs went down. That's empirically and objectively untrue. Unless by "out of context" you mean "out of reality," I don't know what you're doing.

but if you look at the bigger picture (see the link I gave you previously), your statement is wrong. It's like saying that something today costs more than something 20 years ago, but not taking into account inflation.

Monthly job gains now are virtually identical to the monthly job gains of the Obama administration post-recession. If you're going to argue that Obama's economy wasn't as good as it could have been, then what's Trump's excuse? It's hard to commit both a false equivocation and a double standard in one comment though. Good job.

The recession, caused by both policies that Clinton and Bush put into place was stopped shortly after Obama took office, mainly due to bipartisan efforts to get us out of it.

Here is another instance where I'm going to use cold facts to demonstrate you're wrong, and you're not going to concede: Republicans largely opposed the stimulus of 2009 and successfully blocked more of it after the 2010 elections. It was a Democratic president with a Democratic congress using Democratic policies that got us out of the recession, and the month-to-month job gains have been largely consistent ever since.

Side note: The economic recovery would have been much better if Republicans hadn't blocked additional stimulus spending, so whenever you say "it could have been better," you have Republicans to blame for that. I guess saying "it could have been better" is better than saying "the economy got worse under Obama, and jobs went down," but that's something you still haven't conceded, and I am waiting. Anything less than "I was wrong" is insufficient.

If you look at just the growth during this time, taken out of context, then under Obama, more jobs were created at first, but then leveled out. If you take into account the other variables mentioned in the article I linked to we have better growth and more jobs under the current administration than the previous, plus things haven't gotten worse.

1. Under Obama, more jobs were created, and while the rate of job increases decreased after getting out of the recession (since, you know, many of those jobs that were lost during the Bush Recession had come back), brand new jobs were still consistently being created month to month. Please don't talk about context like you know what the word means.
2. We have not had better growth and more jobs under Trump. Look at the month-to-month chart I posted earlier. Job growth under Trump is comparable to what it was under Obama post-recession. Trump inherited a healthy economy. Since the trendline has hardly moved on job additions, we can arguably thank Obama for the jobs totals between 2017-2019 in addition to the jobs totals from his terms.

I addresses your questions, now are you going to answer each one I asked about your position on the LGBTQ non-issue?

1. I have demonstrated, objectively, how you've been wrong numerous times, and you haven't conceded.
2. You (incorrectly) insulted another person here for never concededing when he's wrong.
3. I don't feel like wasting my time having a conversation with someone who both a.) can't concede when he's proven to be wrong, and b.) is a hypocrite. Respectfully, if I wanted to waste my time with self-righteous neocons who can't ever admit when they're wrong, are hypocritical about it, and reframe the conversation as part of a scattershot approach to arguing conservatism for the sake of arguing conservatism, regardless of the facts, I'd go to conservative areas of Reddit and 4chan.
4. You're the one who said LGBT issues aren't real issues, so I don't know why you want to talk about them.
5. Speaking of your pivot to LGBT issues (for some reason?), you have a habit of arguing against strawmen. Like, a lot. For example, when I call you out for being wrong, you brought up Antifa as though that's what I was criticizing you for. When I said that LGBT rights was a real issue, you started acting as though I was equivocating LGBT rights and the "enslavement of an entire race," and that's why I was wrong. Putting aside for a moment your hypocrisy and your absurd unwillingness to concede objective facts, I find it uninteresting to have a conversation with someone who, instead of responding to me, appears to be responding to an imaginary friend.

Sure, a lot of them pay taxes, like sales taxes, using the money they are being given for free, out of my taxes or the money they are making by human smuggling or running drugs. Not to mention the free housing, health care and food assistance they are receiving for simply being here illegally and not working or coming here illegally and using one or more childen as an anchors. Some of them have illegitimate jobs (working at legal businesses, illegally) which they shouldn't have to begin with, so some of those might be paying taxes using stolen identities, but the majority of illegal immigrants cost legal citizens a lot more money then they're putting back into the economy as for every one you have paying some sort of tax there's more leeching off of the system.

Read above for why I'm not moving on to a different conversation with you. If you want, I'll make it easy for you. Here are some of the things (paraphrased) you have said recently that are objectively false. If you can respond to each and every one by saying "I was wrong" without inserting unnecessary (and incorrect) commentary about "context," I'll have whatever conversation you want. Until then, I can't overstate how uninterested I am in doing so.

1. "Under Obama, jobs went down."
2. "Under Obama, the economy got worse."
3. "The economy didn't do better until the Republicans took over."
4. "Under Trump, monthly job additions are higher than what they were under Obama."
5. "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was bipartisan."

 

[cots]

Your COMMENTARY from investors.com compares obamas recovery to reagans recovery in substantially different economic and political contexts. Which is ironic, since it seems to put so much emphasis on the idea of context.

The argument: Population grew more under obama so his job numbers should've grown much higher... sounds kinda dumb since a) children usually don't join the labour force until their late teens and that number speaks nothing of the population growth 14-18 years prior, the relevant one to maybe look at if you wanna go this weirdly round about way. Why not look at the number of actual able bodied, working age people? Knowing my statistic hustlers, probably because that didn't make it seem like the numbers were bad. But that's just assuming.

and b) putting all that aside, more people currently spent time on education before even entering the labor force than like I wanna say 40 years ago under reagan? So the relevance between current population growth and job numbers is kinda flimsy at best.

Second, the context of time, it was supposedly easier to make jobnumbers grow when they were way down, compared to when they're further up.
While historically, Reagan himself is the best example of that being true (the legendary 1,1 million jobs in one month myth being the result of a ~700.000 person strong decline of people on payroll caused by a temporary strike one month before in i wanna say the communications sector, which were counted towards the job growth the following month as they stopped striking and were added to the payroll again) but despite that, I wanna say that one is debatable in general. It's not like the us economy just has literally no room to grow further, there's no magical barrier capping it out right now. THere's physical room for it, the us is mostly empty wasteland still. There's wealth in the hands of supposed capitalists/investors, and there's definitely enough work force to exploit for profit and since this whole thing is a circle, if you pay more people, there's more people to buy your crap/service.

Little is truly preventing it from expanding and creating more jobs. There's stuff like ever increasing student debt preventing a new generation from trying their hand and risky entrepreneur stuff and capping potential sales of whatever right now and of course there's automation to look forward too, increasing opportunistic costs of employing people today when just tomorrow, a cool machine could make people unnecessary. But that can be solved politically with a tax on not employing actual people. Looking at policy and it's ability to create incentives or kill incentives to work against the population for profit, it wouldn't be hard to make those job numbers explode even today, if you wanted. That tax cut nonsense from 2 years ago? The money lost there could've created job growth to -actually- blow obamas out of the water for real.

Third from the COMMENTARY labor participation changing.
Yes, that's personally the weirdest one in my book, because it makes it sound like people weren't dropping out of the work force during reagans time or today under trump.


Overall, that investors.com COMMENTARY seems like it was hurriedly thrown out to obfuscate reality by making a needlessly complex argument where 'context' could as well translate to 'shit i can say that you wouldn't check anyways, because you're either too lazy or too stupid to do it right'

As for your constant persistence that things kept going on under trump with no major declines, again, context. He inherited a system that would've continued to grow with a monkey and a magic 8-ball in charge.
The surprising thing isn't that it continued on like before, but that the needlessly expensive for all americans trade wars and the stock market still dumping around at early 2018 levels (they pretty much all peaked out the day before trump discovered and promptly misunderstood the concept of a trad war and tariffs) with no major growth since then, have not managed to bring it all crashing down again -yet-.

Thank you for your commentary about thier indepth analysis of the facts as you can clearly see using data out of context from a single source is an invalid way to go about winning a debate or trying to make a point.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I'm uninterested in this kind of half-assed nonconcession. The context is you said the economy did worse under Obama and that jobs went down. That's empirically and objectively untrue. Unless by "out of context" you mean "out of reality," I don't know what you're doing.


Monthly job gains now are virtually identical to the monthly job gains of the Obama administration post-recession. If you're going to argue that Obama's economy wasn't as good as it could have been, then what's Trump's excuse? It's hard to commit both a false equivocation and a double standard in one comment though. Good job.


Here is another instance where I'm going to use cold facts to demonstrate you're wrong, and you're not going to concede: Republicans largely opposed the stimulus of 2009 and successfully blocked more of it after the 2010 elections. It was a Democratic president with a Democratic congress using Democratic policies that got us out of the recession, and the month-to-month job gains have been largely consistent ever since.

Side note: The economic recovery would have been much better if Republicans hadn't blocked additional stimulus spending, so whenever you say "it could have been better," you have Republicans to blame for that. I guess saying "it could have been better" is better than saying "the economy got worse under Obama, and jobs went down," but that's something you still haven't conceded, and I am waiting. Anything less than "I was wrong" is insufficient.

1. Under Obama, more jobs were created, and while the rate of job increases decreased after getting out of the recession (since, you know, many of those jobs that were lost during the Bush Recession had come back), brand new jobs were still consistently being created month to month. Please don't talk about context like you know what the word means.
2. We have not had better growth and more jobs under Trump. Look at the month-to-month chart I posted earlier. Job growth under Trump is comparable to what it was under Obama post-recession. Trump inherited a healthy economy. Since the trendline has hardly moved on job additions, we can arguably thank Obama for the jobs totals between 2017-2019 in addition to the jobs totals from his terms.

1. I have demonstrated, objectively, how you've been wrong numerous times, and you haven't conceded.
2. You (incorrectly) insulted another person here for never concededing when he's wrong.
3. I don't feel like wasting my time having a conversation with someone who both a.) can't concede when he's proven to be wrong, and b.) is a hypocrite. Respectfully, if I wanted to waste my time with self-righteous neocons who can't ever admit when they're wrong, are hypocritical about it, and reframe the conversation as part of a scattershot approach to arguing conservatism for the sake of arguing conservatism, regardless of the facts, I'd go to conservative areas of Reddit and 4chan.
4. You're the one who said LGBT issues aren't real issues, so I don't know why you want to talk about them.
5. Speaking of your pivot to LGBT issues (for some reason?), you have a habit of arguing against strawmen. Like, a lot. For example, when I call you out for being wrong, you brought up Antifa as though that's what I was criticizing you for. When I said that LGBT rights was a real issue, you started acting as though I was equivocating LGBT rights and the "enslavement of an entire race," and that's why I was wrong. Putting aside for a moment your hypocrisy and your absurd unwillingness to concede objective facts, I find it uninteresting to have a conversation with someone who, instead of responding to me, appears to be responding to an imaginary friend.

Read above for why I'm not moving on to a different conversation with you. If you want, I'll make it easy for you. Here are some of the things (paraphrased) you have said recently that are objectively false. If you can respond to each and every one by saying "I was wrong" without inserting unnecessary (and incorrect) commentary about "context," I'll have whatever conversation you want. Until then, I can't overstate how uninterested I am in doing so.

1. "Under Obama, jobs went down."
2. "Under Obama, the economy got worse."
3. "The economy didn't do better until the Republicans took over."
4. "Under Trump, monthly job additions are higher than what they were under Obama."
5. "The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was bipartisan."

Nice way to avoid adressing my LGBTQ question after I did as you asked and responded to you. It seems though, until I concede that your simple out of context opinion is any more valid then mine you're refusing to answer the question, which I won't do because it's simply your opinion and it's very narrow and limited compared to the other factors involved. Seeing this is the case, that one must agree with you're simple opinion and 3rd grade debate tactics I see no point in continuing the discussion with you now or in the future related to any topic. I tend to filter out white noise so you're now blocked.

 

[Lacius]

Nice way to avoid adressing my LGBTQ question after I did as you asked and responded to you. It seems though, until I concede that your simple out of context opinion is any more valid then mine you're refusing to answer the question, which I won't do because it's simply your opinion and it's very narrow and limited compared to the other factors involved. Seeing this is the case, that one must agree with you're simple opinion and 3rd grade debate tactics I see no point in continuing the discussion with you now or in the future related to any topic. I tend to filter out white noise so you're now blocked.

1. Jobs did not go down under Obama (they went up).
2. The economy did not get worse under Obama (it got better).
3. The economy did better before the Republicans took over.
4. Monthly job additions are not higher under Trump than they were under Obama.
5. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was not bipartisan. Zero Republicans voted for it in the House, and only three Republicans voted for it in the Senate.

 

[Xzi]

The economy did better before the Republicans took over.

It's amazing that anyone would even try to argue this point. Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget, but gave us a budget surplus by the end of his second term. We were well on our way to paying off the entire national debt. Then GWB comes along, starts two never-ending wars, cuts taxes (primarily for the rich), and crashes the economy/puts us into a recession. Which in turn forced us to spend even more to dig ourselves out of that hole. Trump's priorities have been very similar to GWB's, only difference being he hasn't started a war yet. But he has taken the corporate boot-licking to an extreme: cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and giving out free money to private prison companies for doing a shit job with immigrant detention facilities.

 

[cots]

It's amazing that anyone would even try to argue this point. Bill Clinton not only balanced the budget, but gave us a budget surplus by the end of his second term. We were well on our way to paying off the entire national debt. Then GWB comes along, starts two never-ending wars, cuts taxes (primarily for the rich), and crashes the economy/puts us into a recession. Which in turn forced us to spend even more to dig ourselves out of that hole. Trump's priorities have been very similar to GWB's, only difference being he hasn't started a war yet. But he has taken the corporate boot-licking to an extreme: cutting the corporate tax rate in half, and giving out free money to private prison companies for doing a shit job with immigrant detention facilities.

Yeah, at first glance, if you look at the raw data without interpreting or using it in context, your misleading statements (aka lies) look valid. Anyone with a mind knows that the economy isn't mainly influenced by just the President.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-economy-1990s-ronald-reagan-george-h-w-bush/

It's funny how everyone blames Trump for anything they dislike in the government, the same way someone particular in my family used to blame Obama, when they are single people who rely on countless others to have their branch function. Saying it's all Trump's fault is giving him way too much credit. He, nor Obama, Bush or Regan could ever be smart enough to run the entire branch of government by themselves. Most of the policies and agendas that are put forth aren't in any way, shape or form their sole ideas or creations. Presidential Derangement Syndrome a seems to be a real thing, whether it's Obama Derangement Syndrome or Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Instead of blaming a single man for all of your personal problems, why not look at the fact they are YOUR PROBLEMS, and it's up to you to fix them yourself. If you would take some responsibility for your own personal actions you might not be so fucking deranged. At least you wound't be trigger ready bait lining up for the slaughter.

Of course, people who are outraged or are angry that act solely on their butt-hurt feelings are much easier to manipulate and control, which is why it's so easy to control the Liberal lemmings. Every time I hear the words "Liberal Outrage", not only do I don't care, but I think of a baby with down syndrome that just stubbed it's toe.

 

[Xzi]

Yeah, at first glance, if you look at the raw data without interpreting or using it in context, your misleading statements (aka lies) look valid.

Yeah...you're going to have to do better than the National Review if you're concerned about lies.

Instead of blaming a single man for all of your personal problems, why not look at the fact they are YOUR PROBLEMS, and it's up to you to fix them yourself.

I haven't mentioned a single personal problem, we're discussing issues that are relevant to the entire nation's well-being.

 

[cots]

As I've already stated it's both Clinton's policies and Bush's war that triggered the recession. Seeing that the current Republican leadership policies have been keeping job growth (more than under the Democrats lead by Obama, which I already linked to an article explaining the details) and improving the overall economy, plus no sort of war has started we're doing much better.

I don't see minor issues like LGBTQ rights or the well being of the minority of some minority of really stupid people who are in bad camps (which all the camps aren't bad), mainly due to the fact they tried to illegally enter our country (hence the stupidity) changing these facts. They are emotional tear jerker issues. Sure, they might make you feel good about yourself or sad, but that's the point. To get an emotional, not logical, response. These non-issues don't really matter compared to real issues like the state of the economy.

 

[Xzi]

I don't see minor issues like LGBTQ rights or the well being of the minority of some minority of really stupid people who are in bad camps (which all the camps aren't bad), mainly due to the fact they tried to illegally enter our country (hence the stupidity) changing these facts. They are emotional tear jerker issues. Sure, they might make you feel good about yourself or sad, but that's the point. To get an emotional, not logical, response. These non-issues don't really matter compared to real issues like the state of the economy.

So you don't think minority issues should be addressed. I'm sure you'll stay consistent with that stance when white people become a minority in this country 5-10 years from now, right?

 

[cots]

Yeah...you're going to have to do better than the National Review if you're concerned about lies.

So, of course, you debunk the entire article based on the fact you don't like where it came from. Figures.

I haven't mentioned a single personal problem, we're discussing issues that are relevant to the entire nation's well-being.

Most of the stuff you mentioned is what you personally see are problems with the nation's well being and most are irrelevant to the survival of our country (on the contrary, a lot of the stuff you're personally concerned about would harm the country, not make it better). The issues you bring up are mainly personal issues you and your party share, which, aren't a single man's fault, so going around with your TDS and outrage isn't going to make anyone take you seriously, not even the people in your own party using you to get rich.

Take some personal responsibility.

More white noise, I welcome you to my ignore list.