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.
I'm not a Dem. I'm actually a Bob Corker fan and supporter, but I'm a realist. This is not about Dem's popularity, it is all about GOP hoof in mouth disease about a simple subject...an unrealistic expectation that changing nothing produces different results.
The GOP should be ashamed with 7.6% U3, 14.7% U6, 2% GDP growth, they lost 61% of all electoral votes..only taking the 2 reddest states back they lost in 2008. That would be similar to a pitcher on the road having his team score 5 in the 1st inning, and giving up more in the bottom half.
2012 was the game changer. If the GOP could not win with that hand, how could they expect to with a less favorable hand?
I dunno. There's something about eight years of grinding misery that even a beautiful, well spoken black man can't quite make you forget. People are starting to remember how comparatively non-awful it was during the Bush years when there was a GOP Congress, and that's dangerous for the Dems.
Wouldn't it have been great if the Reps had the courage to nominate someone who actually believed in conservative principles? Reagan was probably the last guy who could actually project a conservative message as well as Obama projects a progressive message.
Once again an American lefty accidentally blabs about the Left's true motive: Destruction of the evil, racist horrible non-socialist America.
Lefties are so naive to think that wrecking the two-party system will magically turn America into "German-style social Democracy".
I guess it's just their version of "faith"...
But to actually have German-style(or better yet Scandinavian-style) Social Democracy you need lots of Germans or Scanadinavians, which we unfortunately don't have.
Instead of Germans we have a mess of Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Poles etc who will at best vote to recreate the sort of corrupt "socialist", kleptocratic single-party state they fled from.
No, it's not going to be anything like German Socialism.
If that's what you wanted you should have just moved to Germany instead of destroying this once miraculous country.
Germans would have elected Obama in 2008 and 2012.
I dunno. There's something about eight years of grinding misery that even a beautiful, well spoken black man can't quite make you forget. People are starting to remember how comparatively non-awful it was during the Bush years when there was a GOP Congress, and that's dangerous for the Dems.
Wouldn't it have been great if the Reps had the courage to nominate someone who actually believed in conservative principles? Reagan was probably the last guy who could actually project a conservative message as well as Obama projects a progressive message.
Too many bubbles burst and the last was the housing bubble. Sadly our financiers followed the derivatives over inflating the ascending value of properties.
I have been trying to sell a 3 bed house (facebrick and tiled roof 120m2 on a 1100m2 property) for 650k for 3 years now with no luck. That is 60k below market valuation and folk are no longer getting 100% mortgages. Previously the banks were falling over themselves to finance houses. We had a boom and now are in a bust.
So whatever seemed prosperous back in the shrub's presidency, is gone forever. The whole damn world was affected by the implosion of the banks.
When debt is elevated to a trading commodity, what could possibly go wrong, go wrong, go wrong?
The burst of the dotcom bubble did not affect the populace as much as it did IT companies and stock traders. The housing bubble affected everyone.
Add to that high oil prices, stuff I do in the home refurbishment industry has simply pushed raw materials through the roof.
Regardless of who controls the WH, they do not control the economy.
Perhaps if the US did not bail out the banks and forced them to de-monopolise, then maybe we would have had a different outcome. Seems like Norway had the right idea.
Stock exchanges are all linked to WS and so whatever the states screws up with, affects all stock exchanges. The only ones making a windfall of this are the uber rich. In the good old days, companies went public to raise capital to develop. Nowadays brokers bet on the failure of the companies starting out, short selling IIRC.
In the good old days, it was bankers and insurance companies that did investing, now any twit with a software package and access to the internet can trade.
Here in South Africa, we were partially insulated when our then finance minister saw it coming and pushed strict credit laws through. We still got hit bad but had about 12-14 months buffering.
Because houses/property are not appreciating anymore, folk are not investing into their properties with improvements and extensions. It will take a long time before the scales balance out and banks decide to invest again. They are just sitting with too many properties worth less now than what they invested in say 5-7 years ago.
This is why those that aren't on the radical right just have to shake our heads and laugh every time the right wing trolls pull the "The polls are a scam! They are sampling more democrats than republicans!" BS, though we got our LOL's big time after the epic fail of "unskewed polls"
There are many more registered democrats than their are republicans, and this is the difference between the parties.
Democrats show up to vote when they support the candidate, like their positions, and feel they will be a good leader to the nation. If they feel the person is not one, they will drop support and walk away. 2004 is a perfect example of this with Dean that was a a shoe-in to destroy W, but from just saying "yaaa" at a speech, the party disowned him and went with the very weak candidate Kerry. If they don't like the candidate on the ticket, they will stay home.
The GOP on the other hand are useful sheep that show up bright and early on every election day to vote for every candidate with an (R) next to their name. They don't care about their views, don't give a damn what they plan to do, hell they could be members of a terrorist organization and the sheep would still vote for them without question, just as long as that (R) is there.
I dunno. There's something about eight years of grinding misery that even a beautiful, well spoken black man can't quite make you forget. People are starting to remember how comparatively non-awful it was during the Bush years when there was a GOP Congress, and that's dangerous for the Dems.
Wouldn't it have been great if the Reps had the courage to nominate someone who actually believed in conservative principles? Reagan was probably the last guy who could actually project a conservative message as well as Obama projects a progressive message.
Regan talked the talk, but what is forgotten is he did not always walk the walk.7 tax hikes, had a deal with PATCO offering raises, "Shining City on a Hill" sounds kind of progressive actually. And very little political capital spent on the still young Roe v Wade decision. RR never fought unwinnable fights.
The GOP needs to get over the fantasy that bases win a race for POTUS. They never have, never will. Reagan Democrats were critical to RR's win. He knew it, and he knew raw conservatism would turn them off. A brilliant pol who quite frankly faked out the base beautifully.
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.
