Not my fault if you don't know your history.

Well I for one am intrigued... please elaborate!

---

She won't actually get elected, right?  Lord please tell me we've learned enough in the last two elections as a country to avoid this dumpster fire.

 

Give me four more years of Obama over Hilary Clinton as President.

---

She won't actually get elected, right? Lord please tell me we've learned enough in the last two elections as a country to avoid this dumpster fire.


Give me four more years of Obama over Hilary Clinton as President.

I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, but he's not a media darling, so I doubt he gets any traction.


I'm planning on voting fit Bernie in the primary, and will vote for the democratic candidate in the general election.


If there was a republican that came out against the billionaire class and provided policy solutions to help small businesses I'd consider going back to the republican party.


Bring back the anti trust laws to stop corporations from consolidating to near monopolies. Push for major campaign finance reform, reverse free trade policies, etc, these all could be conservative ideologies that help workers and small businesses.

---

So you'd vote for Hillary if she's the democratic candidate? May I ask, why?

 

When I was first able to vote, I was strictly republican. It was young ignorance, in my opinion.  I now have no affiliation with any party and I'm not happy with party politics in general.  

 

I admittedly don't know a lot about Bernie Sanders and I've fallen off in my knowledge of politics as life has gotten busier.   I have a lot of researching to do prior to voting for anyone.  No longer are the times I vote for a party in a race.  If I don't like a candidate on the ballot, I won't vote for them, regardless of who they are associated with.  I'd rather write someone in or leave my ballot blank than vote strictly one party (Democrat/Republican) because, to put it poorly and sum it up quickly, they both suck.

---

Well I for one am intrigued... please elaborate!

 

The Carter Administration exacerbated tensions in the Middle East creating a panic among the American population that resulted in a scarcity of gasoline. The failure of his Administation to demonstrate a strong and, if neccessary, military response to the Iranian Revolution led to the fall of the Shah and the taking of American hostages held for over 400 days. This is recent American history, no wonder we struggle with something as old as the Constitution.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The Carter Administration exacerbated tensions in the Middle East creating a panic among the American population that resulted in a scarcity of gasoline. The failure of his Administation to demonstrate a strong and, if neccessary, military response to the Iranian Revolution led to the fall of the Shah and the taking of American hostages held for over 400 days. This is recent American history, no wonder we struggle with something as old as the Constitution.

The fear over energy and the gas lines started with Nixon and continued with Ford. You only had to go a few years further back. That's also recent American history. 

---

The fear over energy and the gas lines started with Nixon and continued with Ford. You only had to go a few years further back. That's also recent American history. 

 

Yes, and? This only confirms my original statement that Reagan and his successful economic and foreign policies reversed the outcomes of a pretty terrible decade in American history.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, and? This only confirms my original statement that Reagan and his successful economic and foreign policies reversed the outcomes of a pretty terrible decade in American history.

Reagen did many things good things I'm not disputing that. No one will. However this idea of trickle down economics has done nothing but increase wealth gaps. Of course that's a good thing to you.

---

Reagen did many things good things I'm not disputing that. No one will. However this idea of trickle down economics has done nothing but increase wealth gaps. Of course that's a good thing to you.

 

I didn't realize your beloved president, Barry Obama is a trickle down disciple. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, but he's not a media darling, so I doubt he gets any traction.


I'm planning on voting fit Bernie in the primary, and will vote for the democratic candidate in the general election.


If there was a republican that came out against the billionaire class and provided policy solutions to help small businesses I'd consider going back to the republican party.


Bring back the anti trust laws to stop corporations from consolidating to near monopolies. Push for major campaign finance reform, reverse free trade policies, etc, these all could be conservative ideologies that help workers and small businesses.

 

So you have already made your choice well before election time comes up.  That's the problem on both sides.  Far too many people will just vote a straight ticket regardless.  For me personally, as a conservative I already have a couple of democrats in mind that I might possibly vote for based on past performance.  However, nothing is set in stone until I see the opposing candidates and find out about them.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

So you have already made your choice well before election time comes up.  That's the problem on both sides.  Far too many people will just vote a straight ticket regardless.  For me personally, as a conservative I already have a couple of democrats in mind that I might possibly vote for based on past performance.  However, nothing is set in stone until I see the opposing candidates and find out about them.

 

To be fair, he did say "If a republican came out against the billionaire class  and focused on small business"  he'd go back to the Republican Party.

 

My first few times I voted along party lines.  Republican for everything.  I think it was in part because of how I was raised to believe.  And I think it was in part because republicans and democrats have turned it into "Us vs Them".  And until our politicians stop playing the us vs them game, I think most people will continue to play the same game.  


Personally I tend to vote third party to protest the two party system--though if certain candidates win the primaries I'll vote against them.  Maybe I'm too much of a cynic, but there's probably not many politicians whom I'd feel like actually voting for -- and I think I could count them on my left hand.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

So you have already made your choice well before election time comes up.  That's the problem on both sides.  Far too many people will just vote a straight ticket regardless.  For me personally, as a conservative I already have a couple of democrats in mind that I might possibly vote for based on past performance.  However, nothing is set in stone until I see the opposing candidates and find out about them.

 

Being educated about all candidates is something that is discouraged in politics today. 

 

Personally, I'll vote for a democrat, and have , if they are on point in areas revolving around government spending.  My city councilman is a democrat who is one of the biggest hawks on controlling spending. 

 

I'm a Bernie Sanders supporter, but he's not a media darling, so I doubt he gets any traction.


I'm planning on voting fit Bernie in the primary, and will vote for the democratic candidate in the general election.


If there was a republican that came out against the billionaire class and provided policy solutions to help small businesses I'd consider going back to the republican party.


Bring back the anti trust laws to stop corporations from consolidating to near monopolies. Push for major campaign finance reform, reverse free trade policies, etc, these all could be conservative ideologies that help workers and small businesses.

 

Because democrats are against the "billionaire class?"  I guess that explains our dear ruler constantly going to those evil billionaires shilling for donations.  He should be beating the bushes to find poor people to finance his politics.  And that poor pauper, Hillary?  It's shameful how she's been forced to live in such poverty.  Anyone who buys the lip service they're being sold by any politician, republican or democrat, without looking at who they associate with and what their real policies are shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

For every Koch brothers, there's a George Soros on the other side.  Guess what?  He's a billionaire.  But, I guess he's okay because he's an avowed socialist like your icon, Bernie. 

 

You do understand that true conservatives want less government involvement in their lives, right?

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I didn't realize your beloved president, Barry Obama is a trickle down disciple. 

You can make as many moronic assumptions about me an my allegiances as you would like. You can even make as many personal attacks as you are prone to doing as the big bad bully. It does not make any of them true. 

 

I have expressed disappointment of her him many times over. I don't understand why you are so fixated on him to be honest. 

 

In addition what exactly does the current President have to do with my comment on trickle down economics.

---

Being educated about all candidates is something that is discouraged in politics today. 

 

Personally, I'll vote for a democrat, and have , if they are on point in areas revolving around government spending.  My city councilman is a democrat who is one of the biggest hawks on controlling spending. 

 

 

Because democrats are against the "billionaire class?"  I guess that explains our dear ruler constantly going to those evil billionaires shilling for donations.  He should be beating the bushes to find poor people to finance his politics.  And that poor pauper, Hillary?  It's shameful how she's been forced to live in such poverty.  Anyone who buys the lip service they're being sold by any politician, republican or democrat, without looking at who they associate with and what their real policies are shouldn't be allowed to vote.

 

For every Koch brothers, there's a George Soros on the other side.  Guess what?  He's a billionaire.  But, I guess he's okay because he's an avowed socialist like your icon, Bernie. 

 

You do understand that true conservatives want less government involvement in their lives, right?

Let it go man, it's not healthy. 

---

Let it go man, it's not healthy. 

Yeah, I should embrace the "GOVERNMENT IS MY EVERYTHING" mentality, right?  They know best how to manage our lives. 

 

Let me know where you get your shock therapy to tow the line.

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You can make as many moronic assumptions about me an my allegiances as you would like. You can even make as many personal attacks as you are prone to doing as the big bad bully. It does not make any of them true. 

 

I have expressed disappointment of her him many times over. I don't understand why you are so fixated on him to be honest. 

 

In addition what exactly does the current President have to do with my comment on trickle down economics.

 

So pointing out that based on your definition, Obama is a trickle down guy is now considered a moronic assumption?  And you're saying I'm the one issuing personal attacks?  Hypocrite much?

 

What does your comment have to do with your president?

 

Reagen did many things good things I'm not disputing that. No one will. However this idea of trickle down economics has done nothing but increase wealth gaps. Of course that's a good thing to you.

 

Maybe you should take a look at the "wealth gaps" today compared to any other time in our history?   You'd realize that we're looking at the biggest disparity between the haves and have nots in the history of this country, and it's accelerating under your president.  So, you're equating this gap to trickle down, and the gaps are larger now than ever before because of your president's policies, so clearly your president must be a trickle down guy.  It's not rocket science. 

---

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

So pointing out that based on your definition, Obama is a trickle down guy is now considered a moronic assumption? And you're saying I'm the one issuing personal attacks? Hypocrite much?


What does your comment have to do with your president?



Maybe you should take a look at the "wealth gaps" today compared to any other time in our history? You'd realize that we're looking at the biggest disparity between the haves and have nots in the history of this country, and it's accelerating under your president. So, you're equating this gap to trickle down, and the gaps are larger now than ever before because of your president's policies, so clearly your president must be a trickle down guy. It's not rocket science.

OK bully I bow down to your ability to insult and then ignore the hypocrisy in your own statements. You don't come here to conversate. You come to attack and accuse as you have continued to do. The fact that you think he's my guy just shows you don't pay attention until you feel you can flex your bully muscles.


Aside from that Obama has done nothing to address the never ending increase in wealth gap Reagan started. Reagan started it and no one has fixed it. You say nothing untrue but also nothing no one else has already said. Why keep saying it as if people are not already aware of it. Its an obsession.

---