Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

12346»

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 111
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    That is compeltely and totally unsupported. That is simply not how things are with his admin. If anything, they should probably listen to public opinion a little MORE. You're nuts.





    Yup, you sure stick to facts and figures.



    YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE NUTS! LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
  • Reply 102 of 111
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.



    It's not like Bush the Firste got more than 43%. Are you suggesting that there should be a runoff if a president wins without getting the popular vote?
  • Reply 103 of 111
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    I'm not sure how 3% matters. He still had 57% of the voters NOT vote for him. That's a very significant number.



    I was just poking fun at your fuzzy math, which wound up reducing Clinton's vote total from 43% to 33% ("two-thirds didn't vote for him") by a few innocent-looking roundings and fractions. There is definitely a future for you in politics.
  • Reply 104 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    Two thirds was inaccurate. I apologize. It was actually thinking Clinton got like 39% of the vote. I'm not sure why. That would mean 61% voted against him...which is pretty damn close to two thirds.





    Quote:

    It's not like Bush the Firste got more than 43%. Are you suggesting that there should be a runoff if a president wins without getting the popular vote?



    No, I'm suggesting that I hate when Dems bitch about Gore's majority of the popular vote. The fact is that 57% of voters did not want Clinton to be President. That's a huge percentage. I'm not saying it invalidates anything....except the aformentioned Gore hysterics.



    BRussell:







    Quote:

    Yes, that's my opinion. But, as you have said numerous times, this Karl Rove is very important to Bush, and by all accounts this administration is more political than Clinton's. Supposedly, Karl Rove has unprecedented access to all types of policy-making. Bush is on permanent campaign.





    That's pure rhetoric on your part. Rove wil and has joined the campaign. That's all.



    jimmac:



    Quote:

    Come on I can't believe you're that shallow. I think I've mentioned this before. I used to own a book called : " How To Lie With Statistics ". It taught me a lot about how the world and persuasion works. Numbers can be bent to the shape of any argument. I could travel the web looking for numbers to counter your arguments. But I know it wouldn't persuade you. Even when other's here present you with well thought out arguments backed by numbers you still don't accept it. It's like you have a blind spot for the truth. It could be George is screwed by then. We'll just have to see. However I think it's to early to make a broad statement like " The economy is already improving " and translate it into a full recovery or even a minor one.. The experts ( not you ) aren't even doing that.







    Jimmac, any reasonable person or even economist would tell you we are experiencing slow economic growth. That's not great, but it's not bad either. All relevant indicators point to an improving economy. I don't see how that can even be argued. I agree numbers can be made to lie, but GDP estimates? The stock market being 1000 points off its lows? Consumer Confidence Index? Fairly low unemployment? Those are pretty difficult numbers to bend. By your argument, it seems you are saying ALL numbers are meaningless. The ones I've referenced aren't.





    BR:



    Quote:

    Yup, you sure stick to facts and figures.



    YOU'RE WRONG! YOU'RE NUTS! LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!





    Please. That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I said BRussell was nuts because it is a well accepted fact that Bush tends to make decisions based on his own moral code (whether or not you agree with it). It's interesting that the Bush administration is called out for being unilateral by the same folks here who then turn around and say it's every move is for political advantage and is based on polling. The two don't generally go hand in hand.
  • Reply 105 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BR

    I seem to recall a certain stem cell research issue where had he gone with his principles he would have simply banned it but instead chose to go right down the political middle with his decision.



    Left: WE NEED STEM CELL RESEARCH! WE MUST CURE DISEASES!



    Right: BAN THE BABY KILLERS!



    Bush: Umm...err...uhh...*shrugs* Stem cell research for some, tax cuts for others.



    Give me a break. This has been the worst poll-based presidency we've had in ages.




    and what about that "Free Trade" idea



    and then the Tarrifs for US steel Companies (ot that I maind the idea of tarrifs . . . but that goes for other countries too . .)
  • Reply 106 of 111
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    it is a well accepted fact that Bush tends to make decisions based on his own moral code



    Which is quite frankly bullshit if you look at the stem cell research decision.
  • Reply 107 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    By SDW,



    " Jimmac, any reasonable person or even economist would tell you we are experiencing slow economic growth. That's not great, but it's not bad either. All relevant indicators point to an improving economy. I don't see how that can even be argued. "



    Oh god what was I thinking! Let's all go out and vote for Dubbya twice right now!



    You really expect us to accept that? Oh that's right republicans believe we'll never again have too much growth like in the 60's ( now you can substitute the 90's ). That's what they were telling us in the 80's. That's how you get serial recession. You get a little better then you slide back. The rich just get richer of course.



    Ps. " By your argument, it seems you are saying ALL numbers are meaningless. "



    No, it's your interpretation I find faulty.
  • Reply 108 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    jimmac:





    Quote:

    Oh god what was I thinking! Let's all go out and vote for Dubbya twice right now!



    You really expect us to accept that? Oh that's right republicans believe we'll never again have too much growth like in the 60's ( now you can substitute the 90's ). That's what they were telling us in the 80's. That's how you get serial recession. You get a little better then you slide back. The rich just get richer of course.





    So don't vote for him. I couldn't care less. "We'll never again have too much growth? First, I have never heard a Republican say that. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what you mean. It doesn't matter anyway, because while you continue to claim that Republicans cause serial recession ( ), you have still not cited any Bush administration policy that you feel is contributing to the economy now. How would you stimulate the economy, is all seriousness? You never have an answer because you are too interested in bashing Bush and all Republicans in general. You have no concrete reasons for you dislike of them on the economy.



    As far as the rich getting richer, I'm sure how that has a damn thing to do with this. The government's job is NOT to redistribute wealth. "Rich" people, contrary to popular to idiotic liberal working clas beliefs, PAY THE TAXES in this country. They must be the ones to receive tax relief because they pay a higher dollar figure, not to mention obscene rates to start with, See, jimmac, it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's their money. You know what? They SHOULD get richer. Good for them. Again, though, it doesn't matter that you say only the rich are getting relief, because it's not true. With the last two tax cuts combined, I'll get $100 per paycheck more than I did before the first one passed. So, go don't go telling me it's only for the rich. I am definitely middle class and I have seen the benefits first hand. This class warfare shit is one of the main reasons the Dems are in the spot that they are now.





    Quote:

    No, it's your interpretation I find faulty.



    My interpretation? How does one misinterpret 2-3% GDP growth, unemployment 2.5% below historical averages, consumer confidence index increases, falling energy prices, low interest rates and stock market gains? Really....if these numbers don't represent "the economy" then what IS the economy? How should we measure it? Is there something you'd like to add? Are you going to tell me we should measure it by the "number of unhappy people out there"? What the **** kind of indicator is that?



    What, in your opinion, qualifies as economic growth? What contributes to a good economy? All of the above do. And those numbers are "OK" numbers by ANY reasonable person's judgement.



    I can't see how even YOU, jimmac, can argue that the economy is a disaster and that Bush caused it. You have been unable to point to even ONE example of an economic policy that you think caused the recession or the current slowdown.



    "My interpretation". Jesus. How about you tell us yours?
  • Reply 109 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    jimmac:









    So don't vote for him. I couldn't care less. "We'll never again have too much growth? First, I have never heard a Republican say that. In fact, I'm not even sure I know what you mean. It doesn't matter anyway, because while you continue to claim that Republicans cause serial recession ( ), you have still not cited any Bush administration policy that you feel is contributing to the economy now. How would you stimulate the economy, is all seriousness? You never have an answer because you are too interested in bashing Bush and all Republicans in general. You have no concrete reasons for you dislike of them on the economy.



    As far as the rich getting richer, I'm sure how that has a damn thing to do with this. The government's job is NOT to redistribute wealth. "Rich" people, contrary to popular to idiotic liberal working clas beliefs, PAY THE TAXES in this country. They must be the ones to receive tax relief because they pay a higher dollar figure, not to mention obscene rates to start with, See, jimmac, it's NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY. It's their money. You know what? They SHOULD get richer. Good for them. Again, though, it doesn't matter that you say only the rich are getting relief, because it's not true. With the last two tax cuts combined, I'll get $100 per paycheck more than I did before the first one passed. So, go don't go telling me it's only for the rich. I am definitely middle class and I have seen the benefits first hand. This class warfare shit is one of the main reasons the Dems are in the spot that they are now.









    My interpretation? How does one misinterpret 2-3% GDP growth, unemployment 2.5% below historical averages, consumer confidence index increases, falling energy prices, low interest rates and stock market gains? Really....if these numbers don't represent "the economy" then what IS the economy? How should we measure it? Is there something you'd like to add? Are you going to tell me we should measure it by the "number of unhappy people out there"? What the **** kind of indicator is that?



    What, in your opinion, qualifies as economic growth? What contributes to a good economy? All of the above do. And those numbers are "OK" numbers by ANY reasonable person's judgement.



    I can't see how even YOU, jimmac, can argue that the economy is a disaster and that Bush caused it. You have been unable to point to even ONE example of an economic policy that you think caused the recession or the current slowdown.



    "My interpretation". Jesus. How about you tell us yours?




    Well I've got a question for you. I don't claim to be an economist. I just know what's been the results of republican economics of the past ( many times ). So why don't you tell me ( since you're so versed in this ) what's Bush doing right to stimulate economic growth?
  • Reply 110 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    Quote:

    Well I've got a question for you. I don't claim to be an economist. I just know what's been the results of republican economics of the past ( many times ). So why don't you tell me ( since you're so versed in this ) what's Bush doing right to stimulate economic growth?



    Before I answer, I should point out that we of course disagree on the "result of republican economics". But anyway....it's a reasonable question.



    Answer: The only thing I think the President can do is alter fiscal policy by cutting taxes. He's done that twice now. It worked for Kennedy. It worked for Reagan, and It think it will work again. I know you probably disagree. What Bush has to watch out for is over spending, which I believe is a weakness of his (e.g. more limited government). There really isn't a lot more he can do.



    Before you explode: Please don't even bother saying it's a tax cut for the rich only. I've already disproven that as meaningless politcal rhetoric by showing the actual increase in my middle class, personal paycheck. It's also important to keep in mind that the rich pay the taxes in this country as I said. They are naturally going to get the most money back, dollar wise.



    I'd ask that you please answer MY questions now.



    1) What policy do you disagree with on the economy?

    2) If you do';t like my numbers, how should we (or would you) measure economic growth? How would you measure a "good" economy vs. a "bad" economy?





    Some recent indicators of things improving:



    http://www.suntimes.com/output/busin...in-econ04.html



    Greenspan has not really been a Bush cheerleader...





    http://www.forbes.com/personalfinanc...rtr990932.html



    Dow going up, up, up....





    http://www.thestreet.com/_tsclsii/ma.../10091550.html





    just FYI



    IMO, the Dow needs to go up to 10,000 and unemployment needs to dip below 5.6% before I say things are "good" again.
Sign In or Register to comment.