Democratic Primary Fucktussle!

[JKendallDane]

"Simple: you're talking about the debt and the deficit as if they're one and the same, and they're not."

Yes, it's simple - Senator Obama called President Bush "unpatriotic" for allowing our national debt to increase by $4-trillion - but then, economic simpleton Barack Obama increased that same debt by a whopping TEN-TRILLION-DOLLARS as president!

And once again Dump puts his intellectual dishonesty on full display by conveniently ignoring that HALF of that ten trillion dollars was because Obama put a stop to the Bush-Cheney Enron accounting practices and put the costs of their wars back on the federal books so we had full transparency again.

I know you really don't like facts, Dump, but you just don't get to make up your own. Sorry.

.

 

[Dumpington]

JKendallDane writes: "And once again Dump puts his intellectual dishonesty on full display by conveniently ignoring that HALF of that ten trillion dollars was because Obama put a stop to the Bush-Cheney Enron accounting practices and put the costs of their wars back on the federal books so we had full transparency again."

Here's the FACTS: Senator Obama called President Bush "unpatriotic" back in 2008 for adding $4-trillion to our national debt, but then PRESIDENT Obama turns around and adds $10-TRILLION to that same debt? Yes, Jay-Kendall, you are correct - by his own admission, Barack was an incredibly unpatriotic dumbass!

As for George W. Bush, he actually earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard University - and Bush also ran both a major-league baseball team (the Texas Rangers) and was governor of an enormous state (Texas) before being elected president - whereas Barack Obama never even had to meet a payroll, and the guy knew/knows virtually NOTHING about basic everyday economics!

Even today, NOBODY thinks of Barack Obama as somebody who understands business or knows how jobs are created, because even NOW he's widely considered to be a simpleton on all-things business-related.

 

[JKendallDane]

JKendallDane writes: "And once again Dump puts his intellectual dishonesty on full display by conveniently ignoring that HALF of that ten trillion dollars was because Obama put a stop to the Bush-Cheney Enron accounting practices and put the costs of their wars back on the federal books so we had full transparency again."

Here's the FACTS: Blah, blah, blah, DEFLECT, blah, blah, DEFLECT and blah, blah, blah some more.

As expected, Dump, you didn't even address the singular point I made in my post. You didn't even make an attempt to discuss it or for that matter, even deny it. Nothing but avoidance and deflection for three freakin' paragraphs.

And you wonder why people get snarky with you.

.

 

[YDB95]

As for George W. Bush, he actually earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard University -

After applying unsuccessfully for law school at Texas as an in-state applicant with a degree from Yale. His father didn't know he applied to UT, but he did know he applied to Harvard a couple of years later. Just sayin'.

and Bush also ran both a major-league baseball team (the Texas Rangers) and was governor of an enormous state (Texas) before being elected president

Texas' governorship is one of the constitutionally weakest in the country, and he didn't have a particularly impressive record even with what the office did allow him to do. And his record in business looked a lot like Trump's: failure after failure after failure, and someone else always had to pay the bill.

- whereas Barack Obama never even had to meet a payroll, and the guy knew/knows virtually NOTHING about basic everyday economics!

Obama who has two Ivy League degrees and had access to the brightest guys and gals in the field as president? But never mind that, Dump: what do YOU know about basic everyday economics?

Even today, NOBODY thinks of Barack Obama as somebody who understands business or knows how jobs are created, because even NOW he's widely considered to be a simpleton on all-things business-related.

Certainly among people like you he is.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "After applying unsuccessfully for law school at Texas as an in-state applicant with a degree from Yale. His father didn't know he applied to UT, but he did know he applied to Harvard a couple of years later. Just sayin'."

That's a round-a-bout way of saying that I'm right about George W. Bush receiving an MBA from Harvard University, whereas Barack Obama remained clueless on pretty-much all-things business-related!

"Texas' governorship is one of the constitutionally weakest in the country..."

That's a round-a-bout way of saying that I'm RIGHT about George W. Bush managing one of the biggest states in our country whereas Barack "Rainbow Lights" Obama was busy serving as a lowly state senator in corrupt Illinois.

"Obama who has two Ivy League degrees and had access to the brightest guys and gals in the field as president?"

When Bush ran for re-election in 2004, he received 11,577,160 MORE votes than he'd received four years earlier - whereas when Barack Obama ran for re-election in 2012, he received 3,580,921 FEWER votes than he'd received four years earlier! So WHAT HAPPENED to all of those Obama voters? Were they all murdered in Chicago gun violence? WHY else did they abandon him?

 

[Dumpington]

There are new numbers out today on the https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ web-site averaging out of the various polls:

30.4% - Joe Biden - (It would appear that nobody is catching up to Sleepy-Creepy Joe anytime soon!)

19.9 - Elizabeth Warren - (Liz once again edges past old socialist Bernie!)

16.3 - Bernie Sanders - (And once again the old white socialist from Vermont slips down into 3rd-place!)

7.0 - Kamala Harris - (Kamala remains stuck way back in 4th-place!)

4.6 - Pete Buttigieg - (Mayor Pete is stuck way back in 5th-place!)

2.5 - Cory Booker - (Booker edges up a notch into 6th-place!)

2.4 - Andrew Yang - (Yang has just slipped a tad.)

And the OTHER twenty-something presidential candidates are all at one-percent or less, along with "none of the above!"

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "After applying unsuccessfully for law school at Texas as an in-state applicant with a degree from Yale. His father didn't know he applied to UT, but he did know he applied to Harvard a couple of years later. Just sayin'."

That's a round-a-bout way of saying that I'm right about George W. Bush receiving an MBA from Harvard University, whereas Barack Obama remained clueless on pretty-much all-things business-related!

Obama who got a JD from Harvard, where he was on the law review, you mean?

"Texas' governorship is one of the constitutionally weakest in the country..."

That's a round-a-bout way of saying that I'm RIGHT about George W. Bush managing one of the biggest states in our country whereas Barack "Rainbow Lights" Obama was busy serving as a lowly state senator in corrupt Illinois.

I'd say both their records as president speak louder than your spouting of the bare facts with no context whatsoever. Besides, it's true: Texas' governorship has far fewer powers than most other states - some would even argue the lieutenant governor is more powerful - and even with the powers Bush did have there, he wasn't able to accomplish a whole lot.

"Obama who has two Ivy League degrees and had access to the brightest guys and gals in the field as president?"

When Bush ran for re-election in 2004, he received 11,577,160 MORE votes than he'd received four years earlier - whereas when Barack Obama ran for re-election in 2012, he received 3,580,921 FEWER votes than he'd received four years earlier! So WHAT HAPPENED to all of those Obama voters? Were they all murdered in Chicago gun violence? WHY else did they abandon him?

None of that has anything to do with the point I made (which you haven't even tried to address).

 

[JackLuis]

Flat-out lying’: Critics reject Biden effort to re-write history on his support for US invasion of Iraq

“Biden claiming to have been against the Iraq War from the start is arguably the most outlandish lie any Democrat has told this campaign.”

Count his role in supporting the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as another part of Joe Biden’s long political career that the former vice president—who voted for the war as a senator—doesn’t quite remember correctly.

Biden said that he believed then-President George W. Bush’s claim that Bush needed the threat of war to pressure Iraq to give up its weapons program and therefore voted for the authorization to use military force. But once Bush unleashed the “shock and awe” bombing campaign on the country, the former senator said he had a drastic change of heart.

“Immediately, that moment it started, I came out against the war at that moment,” said Biden.

Oh Good Job, Joe. Flip Flop Much? Don't you know what War is? You and the Demonrat establishment refused to do your duty, but later after seeing what Darth Cheney had in mind, futilely opposed it.

We don't need your limp dicked advice from now on.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Elizabeth Warren Manages to Woo the Democratic Establishment





Has Wall Street lost control of the DNC?

No, they're looking at Warren as the fail-safe, the lesser evil, the more manageable of the insurgents. She's well on her way to become an Establishment pick if things with Biden continue to go south. Meanwhile, many real insurgents turn increasingly toward Bernie, Tulsi, Marianne, and even Yang.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Is the DNC Rigging a Presidential Primary — Again?

Tulsi remains the ultimate insurgent choice, a candidate who blurs the lines between her progressive base and platform and many centrists, independents, and even conservatives who seem drawn to her despite her avowed progressive stances, even on guns.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Good. I think she should sit in the corner for a while after hounding Franken out of the Senate and then turning around and shielding sexual harassment going on within her own staff.

Gillibrand is one of maybe two or three who might tempt me not to vote blue if they were nominated. Thankfully, she didn't make it. Three guess as to who the others are?

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Obama who got a JD from Harvard, where he was on the law review, you mean?"

I write that Barack Obama is clueless on pretty-much all-things business-related, and you respond that he got a law degree? What does THAT even mean?

"Texas' governorship has far fewer powers than most other states..."

Okay, serious question here: which job has the most clout, and which job has the LEAST clout? 1) The owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team? 2) The Governor of the state of Texas? or 3) an obscure Illinois state senator?

"...and even with the powers Bush did have there, he wasn't able to accomplish a whole lot."

Few Texas governors before George W. Bush were re-elected in landslides, but Bush certainly was, winning 68% of the vote in 1998! Bush's 37% margin of victory was the largest won by any candidate since 1966 and is, to date, the largest ever won by a Republican candidate in that state.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "Obama who got a JD from Harvard, where he was on the law review, you mean?"

I write that Barack Obama is clueless on pretty-much all-things business-related, and you respond that he got a law degree? What does THAT even mean?

It means you've harped repeatedly on how Bush has an Ivy League degree while ignoring that Obama does too. And I think you'll find most businesses have lawyers, usually quite a few of them.

"Texas' governorship has far fewer powers than most other states..."

Okay, serious question here: which job has the most clout, and which job has the LEAST clout? 1) The owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team? 2) The Governor of the state of Texas? or 3) an obscure Illinois state senator?

It's only fair that you also include 4) US senator. Besides, owning a baseball team doesn't really prove anything except that you (or in this case your father) have a lot of money to burn.

"...and even with the powers Bush did have there, he wasn't able to accomplish a whole lot."

Few Texas governors before George W. Bush were re-elected in landslides, but Bush certainly was, winning 68% of the vote in 1998! Bush's 37% margin of victory was the largest won by any candidate since 1966 and is, to date, the largest ever won by a Republican candidate in that state.

Which has nothing to do with his actual performance as governor.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It means you've harped repeatedly on how Bush has an Ivy League degree while ignoring that Obama does too. And I think you'll find most businesses have lawyers, usually quite a few of them.



It's only fair that you also include 4) US senator. Besides, owning a baseball team doesn't really prove anything except that you (or in this case your father) have a lot of money to burn.



Which has nothing to do with his actual performance as governor.

The most that one could say for Dubya's record as Texas Governor was that he was a gregarious chap, a schmoozer who could get along well with Blue Dog Democrats and get a few bipartisan bills to reach his desk to sign. Since Texas Blue Dogs are next door to being Republicans (yes, Beto, I'm talking to you), that's not too hard of an accomplishment.

I spent three years in Texas. I know exactly what they're like.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "It means you've harped repeatedly on how Bush has an Ivy League degree while ignoring that Obama does too."

Person A (we'll call him 'George W') earns an undergraduate degree from Yale, followed by a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Person B (we'll call him 'Barack') gets a law degree from Harvard. Now WHICH of these two men would you say understands business & economics more?

"It's only fair that you also include 4) US senator."

A U.S. Senator for TWO years, with no accomplishments other than running for the presidency.

"Besides, owning a baseball team doesn't really prove anything..."

It proves that he knew how to meet a payroll.

"Which has nothing to do with his actual performance as governor."

Bush was EASILY re-elected as governor of one of our nation's biggest & fastest-growing states. Barack, meanwhile, never ran for re-election in Illinois, one of our nation's most debt-ridden states. (And the less we say about Chicago the better!)

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "It means you've harped repeatedly on how Bush has an Ivy League degree while ignoring that Obama does too."

Person A (we'll call him 'George W') earns an undergraduate degree from Yale, followed by a Masters of Business Administration from Harvard. Person B (we'll call him 'Barack') gets a law degree from Harvard. Now WHICH of these two men would you say understands business & economics more?

Since I also have an MBA and I know economics isn't anywhere near as important to the study thereof as people like you think (not to mention that Business Law is a common elective in both fields), I wouldn't draw any conclusions based exclusively on their respective graduate degrees.

But more importantly, we know a LOT more about both Person A and Person B than just what you list there. For starters, we know Person A has openly boasted about barely making it through Yale, only visiting the library when he was too drunk to make it back to the frat house, only getting in in the first place because his father and grandfather were alums, and oh yeah, his policies as president triggered the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. We know Person B - whatever you think of his politics - also has an undergrad degree from Columbia, got excellent grades, and as president he got the country back on track in the aftermath of Person A's disasters.

But we all know you'd still choose Person A because of abortion, Mexicans, and a weird fixation with trans-men using the women's restroom (when in fact they want the right NOT to do that).

"It's only fair that you also include 4) US senator."

A U.S. Senator for TWO years, with no accomplishments other than running for the presidency.

Four years, Dump. Just about exactly the amount of time Dumbya had been governor of Texas when he decided to run for president.

"Besides, owning a baseball team doesn't really prove anything..."

It proves that he knew how to meet a payroll.

No it doesn't. The owner of a business that size is almost never the one actually overseeing the payroll. Especially not in the case of a guy like Bush who was notorious for his laziness and for not being able to manage his way out of a paper bag.

"Which has nothing to do with his actual performance as governor."

Bush was EASILY re-elected as governor of one of our nation's biggest & fastest-growing states. Barack, meanwhile, never ran for re-election in Illinois, one of our nation's most debt-ridden states. (And the less we say about Chicago the better!)

Houston has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but that's neither here nor there. Obama won his lone term in the Senate with 74%, and carried Illinois easily in both his presidential runs. But as even you have said, popularity doesn't have a whole lot to do with actual performance.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Frankly, at that point, Hillary didn't have much more experience than Obama. He had been a state legislator prior to being a Senator. She had gone straight into the Senate from being First Lady, which is not a public office in the usual sense. In either case, it was a relative novice going up against John McCain, but by then, the economic chickens had come home to roost and we had the recession. It would have been a tougher election without the 2008 recession, and without the unforced error of McCain picking Palin as a running mate.

 

[KeithD]

Oh, I don't think so. Hillary didn't bake cookies all of that time as Arkansas first lady, White House first lady, and New York senator. If anything, she was the strategist behind a lazy good-ole-boy. As First Lady, she had major legislation work, including the health care system and she was in the room when response to all national crises were being discussed--and quite probably not sitting on her hands during the discussion. That she didn't succeed with the health care redo doesn't mean she didn't gain a whole lot of useful experience in getting legislation through (or not). By the time she reached the 2008 election, she probably had the most actual experience in governing from multiple angles than anyone else running. She was much more active in the Senate than Obama was, for instance. She got dinged for supporting a military response to 9/11, but she was a senator from the state that was hit. What would one expect their senator to do?

She isn't lovable, but she has been massively and falsely Swiftboated, and although I consider her "use" date to be passed, she would still be the most surehanded, steady president of anyone now seeking the job.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh, I don't think so. Hillary didn't bake cookies all of that time as Arkansas first lady, White House first lady, and New York senator. If anything, she was the strategist behind a lazy good-ole-boy. As First Lady, she had major legislation work, including the health care system and she was in the room when response to all national crises were being discussed--and quite probably not sitting on her hands during the discussion. That she didn't succeed with the health care redo doesn't mean she didn't gain a whole lot of useful experience in getting legislation through (or not). By the time she reached the 2008 election, she probably had the most actual experience in governing from multiple angles than anyone else running. She was much more active in the Senate than Obama was, for instance. She got dinged for supporting a military response to 9/11, but she was a senator from the state that was hit. What would one expect their senator to do?

She isn't lovable, but she has been massively and falsely Swiftboated, and although I consider her "use" date to be passed, she would still be the most surehanded, steady president of anyone now seeking the job.

I hadn't thought of the "health care" debacle, but to be fair to her, she was trying to do something about it. That and she did have a role in CHIP, which Trump let lapse, of course. I'm not entirely convinced that her role in bashing Obama when he ran was something to be proud of, and her Senate record has some areas that I find dubious, but I'll concede your point that she had more political experience than Obama in terms of being a more active First Lady than most.

Not sure that I would say that she is the most experienced, but it is true that she brought a different kind of experience to the table that no other candidate had before her. In that no other candidate had been married to a POTUS before.

 

[KeithD]

Bill wasn't governing a state alone either. Triple experience: State government, national government, Congress, and, eventually a fourth segment of experience, Cabinet. I don't think enough people recognize who was doing what in that marriage. That doesn't make her a saint, but it does make her on the scene, weighing in on decisions, and soaking up political experience. She hasn't been Swiftboated by Republicans and undermined by the Russians because she's not capable and experienced as a politician.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Bill wasn't governing a state alone either. Triple experience: State government, national government, Congress, and, eventually a fourth segment of experience, Cabinet. I don't think enough people recognize who was doing what in that marriage. That doesn't make her a saint, but it does make her on the scene, weighing in on decisions, and soaking up political experience. She hasn't been Swiftboated by Republicans and undermined by the Russians because she's not capable and experienced as a politician.

She learned some very hard lessons from Bill and her getting beat in 1980 by Frank White. They came back stronger after that when they recaptured the statehouse in 1982.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "I wouldn't draw any conclusions based exclusively on their respective graduate degrees."

No, of course you wouldn't. Okay, how about this? We have a guy who is elected president - we'll call him "W" - anyway, as president, "W" increases our national debt by a whopping $4-trillion! Now we go to another guy - we'll call him "O" - and "O" accuses "W" of being "unpatriotic" for allowing our debt in increase by $4-trillion during "W's" 8-years in the White House. But then "O" becomes president and increases that same national debt by TEN-TRILLION-DOLLARS in eight-years!

Which of the above two sounds like a clueless economic SIMPLETON to you with his law degree that's taught him ZILCH about basic everyday economics!

"Four years, Dump. Just about exactly the amount of time Dumbya had been governor of Texas when he decided to run for president."

Using that same logic, Barack Obama had served ZERO years as a U.S. Senator when he decided to run for president. He was basically nothing more than a STATE-senator with nothing whatsoever to show for it! In economic matters, he was an acknowledged dumbass!

"The owner of a business that size is almost never the one actually overseeing the payroll."

Illinois state senator Barack Obama knew NOTHING about basic economics or meeting ANY kind of payrolls! He was an economic simpleton who thought it was the federal government's responsibility to give everybody a job. As president, that corrupt-clueless-dumbass gave $500-million taxpayer dollars to the Solyndra Corporation just in time to see it declare bankruptcy!

"Houston has a higher murder rate than Chicago, but that's neither here nor there."

And Houston is yet ANOTHER city with a Democrat mayor and Democrats running the city council! Democratic Party-run-cities are ALL sh*tholes!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Actually, Obama's plan might have worked better if it hadn't been so timid. If it had been bolder, instead of a "jobless recovery," we would have seen full employment at a critical point and plenty of revenue flowing back into the public offers due to higher aggregate demand.

 

[KeithD]

Obama was humming "We can all get along" for too long. He also was more conservative and "don't rock the boat" than most seemed to understand. We could do with some "don't rock the boat" now.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "I wouldn't draw any conclusions based exclusively on their respective graduate degrees."

No, of course you wouldn't. Okay, how about this? We have a guy who is elected president - we'll call him "W" - anyway, as president, "W" increases our national debt by a whopping $4-trillion! Now we go to another guy - we'll call him "O" - and "O" accuses "W" of being "unpatriotic" for allowing our debt in increase by $4-trillion during "W's" 8-years in the White House. But then "O" becomes president and increases that same national debt by TEN-TRILLION-DOLLARS in eight-years!

Which of the above two sounds like a clueless economic SIMPLETON to you with his law degree that's taught him ZILCH about basic everyday economics!

First of all, you forgot the part where "W" ran up those debts cutting taxes on the rich and funding a war based on lies, and triggered the worst economic downturn since the '30s. To be fair, you did NOT forget that fiscal austerity during an economic downturn would most likely have brought on a second Great Depression - you didn't forget it because there's no way on earth you knew it in the first place. "O" did, and his policies got us back from the brink. Mind you, we could have avoided some of the resulting debt if we'd raised taxes, but the Republicans in Congress never would have allowed that.