Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...
Only part of the reason this could happen is that people are tired of voting in experienced politicians as POTUS who then do their own thing and shift the proverbial gear in reverse.
So people are willing to try "different" that is a non experienced politician = Mr. Trump.
Yup, so instead of voters choosing experienced politicians as POTUS who then do their own thing and shift the proverbial gear in reverse -- some voters want to choose an inexperienced politician as POTUS who then does his own thing and shift the proverbial gear in reverse.
Yup, so instead of voters choosing experienced politicians as POTUS who then do their own thing and shift the proverbial gear in reverse -- some voters want to choose an inexperienced politician as POTUS who then does his own thing and shift the proverbial gear in reverse.
That history is yet to be determined - you, I or anyone can't say what that would be.
But the status quo experienced politicians voted in as POTUS have resulted in the same status quo reverse course - that imo and so many others is what they are SICK and TIRED of.
That history is yet to be determined - you, I or anyone can't say what that would be.
But the status quo experienced politicians voted in as POTUS have resulted in the same status quo reverse course - that imo and so many others is what they are SICK and TIRED of.
What your post ignores is that presidents are not kings and cannot dictate policy. They still need to convince Congress.
It also ignores the fact that even though President Obama had for most of his terms a hostile Congress, he still was able to make substantial changes. In areas from financial reform, health care reform, climate change, energy etc.
The fact that Mr. Obama said during his campaign that he was going to reform health care and did just that, means that we don't get the same "status quo."
Trump was trumpeting on Fallon that this election will be the largest ever if he is the candidate. Republicans better pray that is not the case. Republicans have invested a great deal of effort over the years to suppress the vote - and with good reason.
Whoever thinks the GOP will win 47 states is insane! I just hope they'll win the election, but I doubt they will. Most of the high population states will vote Democrat due to the large amount of minorities in them. While alot of Americans are "fed up" with Obama, alot also still want their gov't check. I'll be shocked if the GOP wins- afterall, besides Texas- what large states will they win?
What your post ignores is that presidents are not kings and cannot dictate policy. They still need to convince Congress.
It also ignores the fact that even though President Obama had for most of his terms a hostile Congress, he still was able to make substantial changes. In areas from financial reform, health care reform, climate change, energy etc.
The fact that Mr. Obama said during his campaign that he was going to reform health care and did just that, means that we don't get the same "status quo."
Reforming health care dems only voted for this ramming it down Americans throats against their will in without even reading what was in it - ask Pelosi.
I never ignored that presidents need to get together with congress which Obama has done a real poor job of as it's his way or the highway tact not willing to really compromise. This is where Mr. Trump will be much different at as he makes deals now with most of the world and will do the same with congress imo.
I simply don't believe the theory being put forth that just because Obama running against the idiot Romney won a state, that automatically means that Hillary Clinton will win that state too.
Because for that to be true, it would mean that voters always vote the party and not the candidate. While some portion foolishly do this, it's clear that a majority of the electorate is breaking away from this mindset and especially this cycle. They are looking at the candidates and voting for the one that appeals to them instead of voting for someone because they are a Republican or Democrat.
But, as for NY, you are forgetting her Senate elections in there. She won with 55% and 82% of the votes.
And what expertise would an economist have in electoral matters? Is he an electoral economist?
The fact that he labels himself a supply-side economist gave away why he would say that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lol-its-good4U
Reforming health care dems only voted for this ramming it down Americans throats against their will in without even reading what was in it - ask Pelosi.
I never ignored that presidents need to get together with congress which Obama has done a real poor job of as it's his way or the highuway tact not willing to really compromise. This is where Mr. Trump will be much different at as he makes deals now with most of the world and will do the same with congress imo.
The majority control of Congress has made it an actual goal to simply oppose Obama. They say it all the time.
Will Trump write mean tweets about the members of congress as a negotiation tactic?
Reforming health care dems only voted for this ramming it down Americans throats against their will in without even reading what was in it - ask Pelosi.
In other words, the Democrats having an open system that allowed the majority to pass a bill turns into "ramming it down Americans throats against their will."
With regard to not even reading it, Congress have loads of aids whose job it is to read bills. the narrative that they just couldn't find the time to read it is GOP propaganda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lol-its-good4U
I never ignored that presidents need to get together with congress which Obama has done a real poor job of as it's his way or the highway tact not willing to really compromise. This is where Mr. Trump will be much different at as he makes deals now with most of the world and will do the same with congress imo.
The deals that Trump makes are licensing deals -- putting his name on a property or product in exchange for money. He doesn't even build his own buildings or own those buildings.
That's light years away from negotiating an arms deal or understanding the ins and outs of how to effectively negotiate with Congress. I'd put up the ultimate insider, Lyndon Johnson, against Trump any day of the week in terms of being able to get Congress to pass his legislation.
In terms of businesspeople in general being presidents, there is much writing on the topic.
Can a businessman help the economy? For presidents, the answer has been no.
Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.
...the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
dems only voted for this ramming it down Americans throats against their will in without even reading what was in it - ask Pelosi.
