2020...

Lion Eyes said:
Start with "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor....if you like your policy you can keep your policy"...
from Investors Business Daily:
ObamaCare was supposed to be Obama's grand legacy, showing how government could be a force for good. Instead, it's become an epic failure that will have to dealt with by the next president. The reforms Obama said would repair a "broken" health system have themselves broken it. Premiums in the newly government-run individual market are up an average 22% nationwide, and at rates of 50%, 60%, even 113% in some states — increases unheard of before ObamaCare. Insurance markets that were once vibrantly competitive are now dominated by one or two carriers. ObamaCare has made Medicaid, an already terrible health program, worse by dumping millions more into it. ObamaCare's taxes, mandates, and regulations are suffocating businesses.
Click to expand...
How is that "far left"? The economy took off during those years, how is that stifling business? Why was the ACA central to and a winning platform for many in 2018 and still is?
 
Lion Eyes said:
So? Doesn't change the fact that many who voted for Obama chose not to vote for Hillary, had they she would have won easily.
Have you forgotten that we have the Electoral College and whomever wins the EC wins the election?
Click to expand...
What of those that chose not to vote at all due to inside and outside influence?
It is telling that the greater the turnout the better it is for Democrats.

. . . and yes, Democrats usually win the popular vote even when they fail to win the electoral. More people like Democrats, it's a fact.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
What of those that chose not to vote at all due to inside and outside influence?
It is telling that the greater the turnout the better it is for Democrats.

. . . and yes, Democrats usually win the popular vote even when they fail to win the electoral. More people like Democrats, it's a fact.
Click to expand...

I am not a Democrat, but more Americans define themselves as Ds than do as Rs.

The best result of the t inadequacy is that the proportion identifying as independent is increasing.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
 
espola said:
I am not a Democrat, but more Americans define themselves as Ds than do as Rs.

The best result of the t inadequacy is that the proportion identifying as independent is increasing.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx
Click to expand...
I miss the GOP . . . who knew the t-party would lead to the party of t.
I see the the timeline starting with possibly the Birchers into the "Moral majority", then Newt in the Clinton years, then Bush/Cheney, it exploded with Palin (an unfortunate footnote in the McCain bio). A facade of normalcy prevailed until Palin, then the roof came off when a family that looked far different then all those before walked into the White House. If it were the Kerry family there would have been vitriol, but nothing like the extreme hate that oozed from some Americas.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I miss the GOP . . . who knew the t-party would lead to the party of t.
I see the the timeline starting with possibly the Birchers into the "Moral majority", then Newt in the Clinton years, then Bush/Cheney, it exploded with Palin (an unfortunate footnote in the McCain bio). A facade of normalcy prevailed until Palin, then the roof came off when a family that looked far different then all those before walked into the White House. If it were the Kerry family there would have been vitriol, but nothing like the extreme hate that oozed from some Americas.
Click to expand...

I was a Republican when I was younger, and even a supporter of Nixon in 1968 -- I turned 21 that year and I would have voted for him if I had been registered, but that year I lived in four different states and I ended up registered in none of them. Then I registered as a Democrat, and then a Libertarian, and finally gave up on organized political parties.

The Tea Party started out as a good idea, but once it became a valid political force it was taken over by lunatics and absorbed into the Republican Party. Maybe someone will try that again, with safeguards against the lunatics.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
How is that "far left"? The economy took off during those years, how is that stifling business? Why was the ACA central to and a winning platform for many in 2018 and still is?
Click to expand...
Taking away private health care and forcing folks to use government health care is far left...
The economy took off...hahahahaha...you're parroting idiot.
Again from Investors Business Daily:

Obama and his defenders have said endlessly that, if nothing else, Obama deserves credit for saving the country from a second Great Depression. It's a claim without foundation. The recession was ending even as he was sworn in, and was over before most of his "stimulus" policies took effect. Even liberal economists admit that the Fed's actions, along with the TARP program enacted under Bush, prevented a further meltdown.

If Obama's economic performance is to be judged, it must be on the strength of the recovery, which began just a few months after he took office. And on that score, he fails miserably. Despite repeated promises that his policies would produce growth rates of 3% to 4% a year, annual GDP growth never reached 3% once — making it the worst recovery since the Depression. Had Obama's recovery been merely average, GDP would be $2 trillion bigger and there'd be millions more with jobs.

Obama, like every Democrat running for office, claimed to be the champion of the middle class, and that instead of "trickle down" economics, he'd growth the economy from the "middle out." Instead, middle class wages stagnated throughout Obama's term in office, with real median household income today exactly where it was when Obama took office.

And despite Obama's constant bragging about the "longest" stretch of private sector job growth, the 15.5 million private sector jobs added since February 2010 hasn't even kept pace with population growth — which climbed 17.5 million over that time. As a result, more than 14 million people have dropped out of the labor force since Obama took office. In fact, without the huge decline in labor force participation under Obama, the unemployment rate would be more like 10%, rather than the official 4.9%.
 
QUOTE="Hüsker Dü, post: 285330, member: 1707"

I miss the GOP . . . who knew the t-party would lead to the party of t.
I see the the timeline starting with possibly the Birchers into the
"Moral majority", then Newt in the Clinton years, then Bush/Cheney,
it exploded with Palin (an unfortunate footnote in the McCain bio).
A facade of normalcy prevailed until Palin, then the roof came off
when a family that looked far different then all those before walked
into the White House. If it were the Kerry family there would have
been vitriol, but nothing like the extreme hate that oozed from
some Americas.


/QUOTE


" extreme hate that oozed from some Americas. "

You're still oozing......


PS: You're missing an " n " among other items....
 
Hüsker Dü said:
I miss the GOP . . . who knew the t-party would lead to the party of t.
I see the the timeline starting with possibly the Birchers into the "Moral majority", then Newt in the Clinton years, then Bush/Cheney, it exploded with Palin (an unfortunate footnote in the McCain bio). A facade of normalcy prevailed until Palin, then the roof came off when a family that looked far different then all those before walked into the White House. If it were the Kerry family there would have been vitriol, but nothing like the extreme hate that oozed from some Americas.
Click to expand...
from Investors Business Daily:
Obama came to national prominence promising that he could bridge racial and political divides and bring the country together. From the moment he stepped into the White House, however, Obama stoked racial tensions and governed as a bitter divisive partisan.
 
Lion Eyes said:
from Investors Business Daily:
Obama came to national prominence promising that he could bridge racial and political divides and bring the country together. From the moment he stepped into the White House, however, Obama stoked racial tensions and governed as a bitter divisive partisan.
Click to expand...

ABSOLUTELY TRUE !!!!!
 
espola said:
I was a Republican when I was younger, and even a supporter of Nixon in 1968 -- I turned 21 that year and I would have voted for him if I had been registered, but that year I lived in four different states and I ended up registered in none of them. Then I registered as a Democrat, and then a Libertarian, and finally gave up on organized political parties.

The Tea Party started out as a good idea, but once it became a valid political force it was taken over by lunatics and absorbed into the Republican Party. Maybe someone will try that again, with safeguards against the lunatics.
Click to expand...
What safeguards would you propose for a two party system with lunatics on both sides. In case you forgot about Bernie and AOC.
 
Lion Eyes said:
from Investors Business Daily:
Obama came to national prominence promising that he could bridge racial and political divides and bring the country together. From the moment he stepped into the White House, however, Obama stoked racial tensions and governed as a bitter divisive partisan.
Click to expand...

Isn't IBD the news source that said that if Steven Hawking lived in the UK he would have died under the inadequate health care provided there under its National Health Service?
 
Lion Eyes said:
from Investors Business Daily:
Obama came to national prominence promising that he could bridge racial and political divides and bring the country together. From the moment he stepped into the White House, however, Obama stoked racial tensions and governed as a bitter divisive partisan.
Click to expand...
By his appearance alone . . . unless you can give evidence otherwise, besides someone's opinion?
 
Lion Eyes said:
Taking away private health care and forcing folks to use government health care is far left...
The economy took off...hahahahaha...you're parroting idiot.
Again from Investors Business Daily:

Obama and his defenders have said endlessly that, if nothing else, Obama deserves credit for saving the country from a second Great Depression. It's a claim without foundation. The recession was ending even as he was sworn in, and was over before most of his "stimulus" policies took effect. Even liberal economists admit that the Fed's actions, along with the TARP program enacted under Bush, prevented a further meltdown.

If Obama's economic performance is to be judged, it must be on the strength of the recovery, which began just a few months after he took office. And on that score, he fails miserably. Despite repeated promises that his policies would produce growth rates of 3% to 4% a year, annual GDP growth never reached 3% once — making it the worst recovery since the Depression. Had Obama's recovery been merely average, GDP would be $2 trillion bigger and there'd be millions more with jobs.

Obama, like every Democrat running for office, claimed to be the champion of the middle class, and that instead of "trickle down" economics, he'd growth the economy from the "middle out." Instead, middle class wages stagnated throughout Obama's term in office, with real median household income today exactly where it was when Obama took office.

And despite Obama's constant bragging about the "longest" stretch of private sector job growth, the 15.5 million private sector jobs added since February 2010 hasn't even kept pace with population growth — which climbed 17.5 million over that time. As a result, more than 14 million people have dropped out of the labor force since Obama took office. In fact, without the huge decline in labor force participation under Obama, the unemployment rate would be more like 10%, rather than the official 4.9%.
Click to expand...
In this post your opinion is based on right wing rhetoric and the part you cut and pasted is opinion based on bullshit right wing spun numbers.
Do you think the economy is doing well now? Do you see unemployment rates as low? When did that start?

"Taking away private health care"? Some of the old plans didn't provide sufficient coverage under the stricter guidelines, period.
And "government health care"? Do you mean Medicare expansion? Do we have universal healthcare now?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top