Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bill Clinton: Hillary can 'put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us'

+2
Vikingwoman
Markle
6 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Markle

Markle

Bet this will make quite a commercial. Especially since Hillary Clinton is trying to run as a third term Obama.

Bill Clinton: Hillary can 'put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us'
Dan Merica-Profile-Image
By Dan Merica, CNN
Updated 3:39 PM ET, Tue March 22, 2016 | Video Source: KXLY

Seattle (CNN)Bill Clinton, while campaigning for his wife in Spokane, Washington, on Monday, seemingly knocked President Barack Obama's legacy in a riff that his aides said was unintended.

"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/21/politics/bill-clinton-hillary-obama-legacy/index.html

Vikingwoman



The awful legacy was what the repugs did for the last eight years-not Obama.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Vikingwoman wrote:The awful legacy was what the repugs did for the last eight years-not Obama.

That is not what Billy-boy ssid.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


His remarks may be interpreted in a different way, and most certainly he was talking about the GOP's record of obstruction and outright destruction. Did you read the article in THE NEW YORKER? But the GOP leadership has no one to blame but themselves.

Markle

Markle

Vikingwoman wrote:The awful legacy was what the repugs did for the last eight years-not Obama.

Please explain why it is that you cannot accept what former President Bill Clinton said in support of his "wife" in the presidential race.

As you know, or should know and accept is the fact that Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate the first two years Lame Duck President Obama was in office. The next four years, Democrats controlled two of those three elements and only since 2016, due to this failed administration, Republicans control the House and Senate.

Vikingwoman



Because that's not what he meant Farkle. You have misconstrued his statements as usual.

Guest


Guest

Obstructing leftist doctrine is a good thing. Our constitutional political system worked as it should.

No one person or radical element should be allowed to shove their ideology and policies down the mouths of others.

Go to china or cuba or iran if that's your idea of a good governmental system.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Viking and Floridatexan.....I don'T need either one of you to give your interpretation of what YOU  THINK  he meant.


Good grief......put you republican horns away....



"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife.

2seaoat



It takes a simple interpretation of his remarks to have cognition. If some folks do not understand that the failure of trickle down economics has impacted two administrations, then there is no amount of explaining I can do.

President Obama is an opponent to trickle down economics and shares President Clinton's conclusion that the last 16 years have been an awful legacy of the failure of the same. Nice try to disassociate the topic of his comments which were trickle down economics.......he was correct, and President Obama agrees.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:It takes a simple interpretation of his remarks to have cognition.  If some folks do not understand that the failure of trickle down economics has impacted two administrations, then there is no amount of explaining I can do.

President Obama is an opponent to trickle down economics and shares President Clinton's conclusion that the last 16 years have been an awful legacy of the failure of the same.   Nice try to disassociate the topic of his comments which were trickle down economics.......he was correct, and President Obama agrees.

No one needs you, or anyone else, to perfectly understand what was said by former President Bill Clinton.  He said the past EIGHT YEARS.  Somehow he neglected to mention that his wife, Hillary Clinton was a MAJOR PART OF THAT ADMINISTRATION AS SECRETARY OF STATE.

IF the point was about economics, then Bill Clinton should have said the past eight years was a failure.

Oh...that's right, HE DID!

2seaoat



IF the point was about economics,

It was not about economics generally, but very specifically the failure of trickle down economics. You evidently forget who was responsible for that flawed and failed concept which has adversely impacted the nation for more than the 16 years.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The awful legacy was what the repugs did for the last eight years-not Obama.

Please explain why it is that you cannot accept what former President Bill Clinton said in support of his "wife" in the presidential race.

As you know, or should know and accept is the fact that Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate the first two years Lame Duck President Obama was in office.  The next four years, Democrats controlled two of those three elements and only since 2016, due to this failed administration, Republicans control the House and Senate.

That is a lie...actually a whole series of lies.

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-did-not-control-congress-his-first-two-years

No! Obama Did Not Control Congress His First Two Years!

Can we, once and for all, put that lie to rest? People I actually like and respect heard this on Fox (to be precise, you probably heard it the last time on “Morning Joe” with Joe Scarborough in mid-April of this year) and keep repeating it. But I don’t care if you heard it in Sunday School (and in Kansas… you may have) – it’s a lie.

Before I accuse anybody of being unbelievably forgetful, I will admit that I can’t remember what I had for breakfast today. Being forgetful is not a crime. Lying is sometimes a crime, but when you lie on internet political blogs, that’s not a crime. However, it should tug at your conscience a bit.

Let’s take a trip back to 2008.

And let’s brush up on some basics. First, did you forget that the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation.

What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts.

Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate.

With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate. Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats.

By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats.

Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Spector switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes.

We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically. One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time.

Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital.

Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again.

Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not.

It wasn’t until August- 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes.

That filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year. Not 6 months.

Just 4 months – from August 2009 to February 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in.


But here’s a fact that nobody can deny:

Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.

For six years, Republicans had total and complete and undeniably absolute control over everything.

And how did that work out in the final analysis?

It doesn’t bear repeating. You know the answer to that as well as I do. Six years to screw up the whole country – nay, the entire damned world!

And you whine because Obama could not fix it all in four months?

Alright, I expect you to whine. But from this point on there is no excuse for lying. Not now that you know the truth.


*************



Last edited by Floridatexan on 3/23/2016, 5:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Vikingwoman



Joanimaroni wrote:Viking and Floridatexan.....I don'T need either one of you to give your interpretation of what YOU  THINK  he meant.


Good grief......put you republican horns away....



"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife.

I certainly wasn't directing my interpretation of what he meant to you so if you read my response to Markle Farkle as directed to you then you should read the post more clearly and respond appropriately.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Vikingwoman wrote:
Joanimaroni wrote:Viking and Floridatexan.....I don'T need either one of you to give your interpretation of what YOU  THINK  he meant.


Good grief......put you republican horns away....



"If you believe we can rise together, if you believe we've finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us and the seven years before that where we were practicing trickle-down economics, then you should vote for her," the former president said about his wife.

I certainly wasn't directing my interpretation of what he meant to you so if you read my response to Markle Farkle as directed to you then you should read the post more clearly and respond appropriately.

There is not a chance in hell I would drop my opposition to Republicans...not after Bush, not after watching the GOP try to destroy Obama's presidency, and not after watching the GOP candidates for POTUS spout their ridiculous ideas about how to run the country.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:IF the point was about economics,

It was not about economics generally, but very specifically the failure of trickle down economics. You evidently forget who was responsible for that flawed and failed concept which has adversely impacted the nation for more than the 16 years.

Say what?

It is not about economics...but it is about...economics?

As you know well, and it pains you greatly, former Presidential Great, Ronald Reagan's economic policies dug us out of the quagmire caused by President Carter and led to a quarter century of growth.

Markle

Markle

By the way, President Clinton did not mention the economy when he was denigrating the last eight years.

AFTER the event, when President Clinton's handlers were attempting to walk back his statement, a spokesperson for Clinton said:

"Angel Urena, Bill Clinton's spokesman, did not directly explain what the former President meant by the "awful legacy of the last eight years," but reiterated that Bill Clinton thinks "President Obama doesn't get the credit he deserves for setting us back on course for economic prosperity."

Try keeping up Progressives. It isn't all that difficult to comprehend.

2seaoat



As you know well, and it pains you greatly, former Presidential Great, Ronald Reagan's economic policies dug us out of the quagmire caused by President Carter and led to a quarter century of growth.

Ronald Reagan was a great president on International relations.....few could match his accomplishments, and like Donald Trump he was ridiculed for his foreign policy knowledge, but his presidency was an utter and complete failure with his trickle down economics which his own chief of budgets called voodoo economics, and which has proven to cause more harm to this country than any other single action in the last 100 years, excluding President Bush's Iraq failure which was only compounded by taking those dollars off the budget and crashing this nation further in debt.............

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:As you know well, and it pains you greatly, former Presidential Great, Ronald Reagan's economic policies dug us out of the quagmire caused by President Carter and led to a quarter century of growth.

As you well know, Reagan institutionalized the highest peacetime annual deficits in our nations history. He showed all politicians how to do it, and all from both sides of the isle have followed since. What was the national debt in 1981, when Reagan decided to rob future generations to fund his current prosperity? Reagan tripled the national debt during his 8 years.

What is so sad is that the 1985 Gramm-Hollings-Rudman Deficit Control Act was thrown out by the Supreme Court. That law might have stopped Reagan in his tracks, and all who followed as well.
[/quote]

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:As you know well, and it pains you greatly, former Presidential Great, Ronald Reagan's economic policies dug us out of the quagmire caused by President Carter and led to a quarter century of growth.

Ronald Reagan was a great president on International relations.....few could match his accomplishments, and like Donald Trump he was ridiculed for his foreign policy knowledge, but his presidency was an utter and complete failure with his trickle down economics which his own chief of budgets called voodoo economics, and which has proven to cause more harm to this country than any other single action in the last 100 years, excluding President Bush's Iraq failure which was only compounded by taking those dollars off the budget and crashing this nation further in debt.............

Proven to who?

Undeniably, President Reagan's policies led to 25 years of economic growth after being left with the catastrophe known as President Clinton.

Here too, what you have seen at least a dozen time is President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden raking in all the glory for the VICTORY in Iraq.


Clinton also said Bush should not be faulted if banned weapons of mass destruction aren't found.

"I don't think you can criticize the President for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. . . . That is what I was always told," Clinton said.
-  Former President Clinton Wednesday, April 16, 2003

"Could Be One of the Great Achievements of This Administration" The vice president said he’d been to Iraq 17 times and visits the country every three months or so. "I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society" he said. "It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
- Vice President Joe Biden (D) Feb. 10, 2010

How has the war President Barack Hussein Obama said we SHOULD have been fighting going?  How is the Middle East going now that President Obama is President?  Oh, Afghanistan just crossed 2,330 American fatalities.  Seventy percent of whom died since President Obama took office.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcOv-AbHlCk

And now the Obama administration wants to TAKE CREDIT for the Iraq war…whew….

Wouldn't it be easier for you to print this out and post on your computer screen where is easy to remember?

Why is it so difficult for you to recall these facts.  More importantly is WHY to continue to ignore the facts?



Last edited by Markle on 3/25/2016, 12:17 am; edited 1 time in total

2seaoat



Huh?

You are rambling again....proven.......every peer rated economist in America will without exception address the failures of trickle down economics.

Markle

Markle

2seaoat wrote:Huh?

You are rambling again....proven.......every peer rated economist in America will without exception address the failures of trickle down economics.

By "peer rated" you mean Socialist such as Paul Krugman.

We have a failed economy with the "leadership" of Lame Duck President Obama.

HOW does that demonstrate that another successful economy was...a failure.


Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Markle wrote:
2seaoat wrote:IF the point was about economics,

It was not about economics generally, but very specifically the failure of trickle down economics. You evidently forget who was responsible for that flawed and failed concept which has adversely impacted the nation for more than the 16 years.

Say what?

It is not about economics...but it is about...economics?

As you know well, and it pains you greatly, former Presidential Great, Ronald Reagan's economic policies dug us out of the quagmire caused by President Carter and led to a quarter century of growth.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/10/17/the-abject-failure-of-reaganomics/

The Abject Failure of Reaganomics

October 17, 2013

Exclusive: House Republicans got next to nothing from their extortion strategy of taking the government and the economy hostage, but they are sure to continue obstructing programs that could create jobs and start rebuilding the middle class. What they won’t recognize is the abject failure of Reaganomics, writes Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

Even as the Republican Right licks its wounds after taking a public-opinion beating over its government shutdown and threatened credit default, the Tea Partiers keep promoting a false narrative on why the U.S. debt has ballooned and why the economy struggles, a storyline that will surely influence the next phase of this American political crisis.

If a large segment of the American public continues to buy into the Tea Party’s fake reality, then it is likely that both the political damage and the economic decline will continue apace, with fewer good-paying jobs, a shrinking middle class and more of the bitter alienation that has fed the Tea Party’s growth in the first place. In other words, the United States will remain in a vicious circle that is also a downward spiral.


President Ronald Reagan, delivering his Inaugural Address on Jan. 20, 1981.
The pattern can only be reversed if American voters come to understand how and why their economic well-being is getting flushed down the drain.

The first point to understand is that the current $16.7 trillion federal debt is about $11 trillion more than it was when George W. Bush took office. Not only did Bush’s tax-cut-and-war-spending policies send the debt soaring over the next dozen years but it was those policies that eliminated the federal surpluses of Bill Clinton’s final years and reversed a downward trend in the debt that had “threatened” to eliminate the debt entirely over the ensuing decade.

Amazingly, President Clinton left office in January 2001 with the federal budget in the black by $236 billion and with a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion. The budgetary trend lines were such that Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan began to fret about the challenges the Fed might face in influencing interest rates if the entire U.S. government debt were paid off, thus leaving no debt obligations to sell.

Thus, Greenspan, an Ayn Rand acolyte who was first appointed by Ronald Reagan, threw his considerable prestige behind George W. Bush’s plan for massive tax cuts that would primarily benefit the wealthy. In that way, Bush and the Republicans “solved” the “problem” of completely paying off the federal debt.

When Bush left office in January 2009 amid a meltdown of an under-regulated Wall Street there was no more talk about a debt-free government. Indeed, the debt had soared to $10.6 trillion and was trending rapidly higher as the government scrambled to avert a financial catastrophe that could have brought on another Great Depression.

Reaganomics’ Failure

But this debt crisis did not originate with George W. Bush. It can be traced back primarily to President Reagan, who arrived in the White House in 1981 with fanciful notions about restoring America’s economic vitality through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, a strategy called “supply-side” by its admirers and “trickle-down” by its critics.

Reagan’s tax cuts brought a rapid ballooning of the federal debt, which was $934 billion in January 1981 when Reagan took office. When he departed in January 1989, the debt had jumped to $2.7 trillion, a three-fold increase. And the consequences of Reagan’s reckless tax-cutting continued to build under his successor, George H.W. Bush, who left office in January 1993 with a national debt of $4.2 trillion, more than a four-fold increase since the arrival of Republican-dominated governance in 1981...

[...]

************

F. G. Sanford
October 17, 2013 at 10:49 pm
“Trickle-down” economics always conjures in my mind that acrid stench of naphthaline and ammonia produced by deodorant cakes in the urinals of bus terminals. It’s the smell of poverty, familiar to anyone who’s been there. I might be preaching to the choir, but I don’t think Americans understand how all this works. Some of you at Consortium News probably should write a “Dick and Jane” version, so everybody understands.

Why would Alan Greenspan be worried that the “National Debt” could get paid off? The answer to that question is the last thing they want Americans to understand. Apparently, thousands of Ph.D. economists don’t understand either, because I can only think of two or three who have mentioned it it the last twenty years.

Basically, interest on the “National Debt” insures a steady welfare check to the rich. Like mob bosses, “they gotta get their cut”. The Federal Reserve acts as a loan shark, and the interest payments go to millionaires. Politicians (bookies) work to drive up the debt (bets) so the payoffs get bigger, and millionaires happily pay “protection” money in the form of campaign contributions. Anywhere else, that’s called bribery. The politicians shake down the taxpayers so the government can pay off, but the “protection” money keeps the millionaires from getting tax hikes. This worked fine until they got so greedy the government couldn’t “make book”. The only way they could keep the scam going was to print money. In the real world, that’s called counterfeiting. As too much phony money started threatening the millionaires’ bottom line, they sent in Tea-Party “enforcers”. They want the government to rob the people’s piggy bank – Social Security – to maintain this protection racket. But if the national debt gets paid off, the mob bosses no longer get their “cut”.

So far, not one single measure has been passed in Congress that will improve this situation. The jobs moved off-shore will not come back. Tax revenue continues to diminish as low-wage jobs replace those lost. The rich continue to exploit tax loopholes and move their assets out of the country. More and more Americans will come to recognize that aroma: “Eau de Greyhound”. That’s not the worst thing the impoverishment of America has in store for us. There are things that smell a lot worse. The mob boss “job creators” have the solution. But it’s not trickle-down, it’s “lock-down” in one of those “for profit” prisons. They’re gonna make sure some patsy takes the rap, because they’re “too big to jail”.


Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:
Markle wrote:
Vikingwoman wrote:The awful legacy was what the repugs did for the last eight years-not Obama.

Please explain why it is that you cannot accept what former President Bill Clinton said in support of his "wife" in the presidential race.

As you know, or should know and accept is the fact that Democrats controlled the Oval Office, the House and the Senate the first two years Lame Duck President Obama was in office.  The next four years, Democrats controlled two of those three elements and only since 2016, due to this failed administration, Republicans control the House and Senate.

That is a lie...actually a whole series of lies.

http://cjonline.com/blog-post/lucinda/2012-06-01/no-obama-did-not-control-congress-his-first-two-years

No! Obama Did Not Control Congress His First Two Years!

Can we, once and for all, put that lie to rest? People I actually like and respect heard this on Fox (to be precise, you probably heard it the last time on “Morning Joe” with Joe Scarborough in mid-April of this year) and keep repeating it.  But I don’t care if you heard it in Sunday School (and in Kansas… you may have) – it’s a lie.

Before I accuse anybody of being unbelievably forgetful, I will admit that I can’t remember what I had for breakfast today. Being forgetful is not a crime. Lying is sometimes a crime, but when you lie on internet political blogs, that’s not a crime. However, it should tug at your conscience a bit.

Let’s take a trip back to 2008.

And let’s brush up on some basics. First, did you forget that the President needed 60 votes to pass legislation? The healthcare bill is a good example of that. There were NOT 60 Democrats in the Senate. Remember that? So there had to be reconciliation.

What about the Stimulus? Again, there was NOT 60 Democratic votes to pass it. Reconciliation did not work. It was blocked by the Republicans, and Obama traded job-creating for tax cuts. Remember those tax cuts he let go on? Yep, traded for job creation - which it did accomplish as much as the baby stimulus that he was able to get would allow.

Is it all coming back to you now? How about this: It was Obama’s inaugural dinner. Senator Kennedy suffered a seizure. It’s kind of hard to work when you’ve had a seizure. He went back to Massachusetts.

Old news is so much fun to go back and read about. Here’s one I had forgotten, too. Al Franken had not yet been seated because the previous senator had challenged the election. Mein Gott, that went on forever with no way for him to vote in the Senate.

With Kennedy in Massachusetts and Franken in purgatory, awaiting his chance in the hell that is Congress, that left just 58 votes in the Senate. Memory Refresher: It took 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. The Republicans were already playing dirty politics and would not work across the aisle with the Democrats.

By the way, that was 56 Democrats and 2 Democratically-minded Independents. Not 58 Democrats.

Then, in April 2009 – good news. Republican Arlen Spector switched to Democrat. That gave the Democrats 60 seats with which to discourage a Republican filibuster (their most prized procedure at the time). But… oh no… we forgot, Al Franken was still in Purgatory out there in election recount turmoil. So… back to 59 votes.

We can pause here to lovingly remember the filibuster I just mentioned. Republicans made history during that time by using it more than any time ever before. Reminder (because this can get confusing): It takes 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. The Democrats only had 59 at this point… technically. One of those votes was the very ill, Senator Kennedy. He did cast one vote during that time.

Then, Senator Byrd was admitted to the hospital.

Then Al Franken was sworn in but Byrd was still in the hospital and Kennedy was too sick to ever vote again.

Senator Byrd finally returned, but Kennedy did not.

It wasn’t until August- 2009 that Senator Kirk was appointed to Kennedy’s seat, and finally they had the 60 votes.

That filibuster-proof 60 votes lasted exactly 4 months – Not 2 years. Not 1 year. Not 6 months.

Just 4 months – from August 2009 to February 2010 - when Scott Brown was sworn in.


But here’s a fact that nobody can deny:

Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate from 2001 – 2007.

For six years, Republicans had total and complete and undeniably absolute control over everything.

And how did that work out in the final analysis?

It doesn’t bear repeating. You know the answer to that as well as I do. Six years to screw up the whole country – nay, the entire damned world!

And you whine because Obama could not fix it all in four months?

Alright, I expect you to whine. But from this point on there is no excuse for lying. Not now that you know the truth.


*************

Your facts are wrong. With your rant though, why bother to explain how it is so?

http://polination.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/2007-2008-110th-congress-under-president-bush.jpg

Clearly the picture shows that Bush lost Congressional control as a result of the 06 elections. Dems held that until 2010 after Obamacare was forced down everyone's throats by reconciliation. It's been a steady downhill movement also resulting in the Democrats loss of the Senate in 2014. The loss of the WH is looking pretty certain at this point and that is why you see BLM, Occupy, Soros, SEIU and other groups disrupting things now. They know the gravy train is coming to an end. A GOP POTUS like Trump will ensure so.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


You are completely delusional. The "Tea Party" was an astroturf movement stoked by FAUX NEWS, which must be your main source of "information", but which is not even licensed as a news outlet. Now that move is coming back to bite their collective asses. Trump will never be president, but he will drag the party down with him.

Guest


Guest

But the occupy and blm have merit and legitimacy and standing as movements with populist authenticity.

What have they accomplished again? Lol... does it ever get hard to ignore results and reality?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum