Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I'm just wondering from some of the resident donks what would likely happen - with Obama's ratings sliding would Clinton have a solid chance at unseating the president?

Discuss.

Knee jerk: Yes

I would register as a Democrat and vote for her in the primary.

Another member of the establishment who would "compromise" on issues that favor the power structure and screw the middle class. Yawn.

kalm wrote:Another member of the establishment who would "compromise" on issues that favor the power structure and screw the middle class. Yawn.

I wanna fvck her daughter..........

I'd vote for her in a heartbeat right now in an election with her, Obama, and Romney. Perry's a clown, I'd vote for anyone other than him.

kalm wrote:Another member of the establishment who would "compromise" on issues that favor the power structure and screw the middle class. Yawn.

yeah, she'd be against disastrous trade wars and destructive Hawley-Smoot-type tarriffs, I could see how that wouldn't appeal to you.

I could see myself crossing the aisle on this one - we've got the competition for the world's tallest midget going on in the GOP, Obama ain't getting my vote, so I could see her as a credible alternative to what we have. She's probably not quite the fiscal hawk I'd like, but she'd probably appeal at least as well to the left as Obama and probably draw in a lot of independents/moderates like myself.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:Another member of the establishment who would "compromise" on issues that favor the power structure and screw the middle class. Yawn.

yeah, she'd be against disastrous trade wars and destructive Hawley-Smoot-type tarriffs, I could see how that wouldn't appeal to you.

Well her husband supported GATT and the WTO. Since then, 50,000 factories have closed, we have a massive trade deficit, wages are basically flat, a bunch of wealth has left our shores. You can argue all you want about what to do next, but free trade has been a big fat fail for the US economy as a whole. You could at least admit that but I'm guessing you're too in love with your own ideas.

She could win. It would make the Democrats side more enjoyable. It may force the republicans to counter with Christie which would be welcome as well.

Hillary is going to face a lot of questions surrounding her bad plastic surgery though.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
yeah, she'd be against disastrous trade wars and destructive Hawley-Smoot-type tarriffs, I could see how that wouldn't appeal to you.

Well her husband supported GATT and the WTO. Since then, 50,000 factories have closed, we have a massive trade deficit, wages are basically flat, a bunch of wealth has left our shores. You can argue all you want about what to do next, but free trade has been a big fat fail for the US economy as a whole. You could at least admit that but I'm guessing you're too in love with your own ideas.

If free trade was the only reason those things happened, and if there was a viable alternative, then yes, I and others would admit that. However, the reasons for the negatives you have cited have far more to do with other factors and the reality is, free trade is not going away. Choose to compete and innovate or fade away.

There isn't an alternative to competing.

For someone who is so wedded to protectionism and high tarriffs, it's rather odd to chastise someone else for their positions. How do you plan to unring the bell and return to an era of protectionism and tell me how Hawley Smoot helped and will help again?

I'd defect to Canada.

GannonFan wrote:
...Choose to compete and innovate or fade away.

There isn't an alternative to competing.

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Well her husband supported GATT and the WTO. Since then, 50,000 factories have closed, we have a massive trade deficit, wages are basically flat, a bunch of wealth has left our shores. You can argue all you want about what to do next, but free trade has been a big fat fail for the US economy as a whole. You could at least admit that but I'm guessing you're too in love with your own ideas.

If free trade was the only reason those things happened, and if there was a viable alternative, then yes, I and others would admit that. However, the reasons for the negatives you have cited have far more to do with other factors and the reality is, free trade is not going away. Choose to compete and innovate or fade away.

There isn't an alternative to competing.

For someone who is so wedded to protectionism and high tarriffs, it's rather odd to chastise someone else for their positions. How do you plan to unring the bell and return to an era of protectionism and tell me how Hawley Smoot helped and will help again?

You admitted in another thread that China still needs our debt which in essence means our markets. The same goes for the rest of the world. I haven't advocated "high tariffs", just fair tariffs. The loser would be businesses that choose to outsource poor labor and environmental practices. So nice dodge.

native wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
...Choose to compete and innovate or fade away.

There isn't an alternative to competing.

Further proof that you clearly hate Adam Smith and America.

Not going to happen. It would destroy the Democratic Party, and even the moonbattiest Donks are not that stupid.

For starts, the donks would completely lose the black vote and the white-guilt vote. Those are what brought us the One in the first place.

I would love to see the complete and irreversible factionalization of the Democratic Party, but it is not going to happen. Obama will be their man in 2012, with no primary challenge.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

kalm wrote:Another member of the establishment who would "compromise" on issues that favor the power structure and screw the middle class. Yawn.

I wanna fvck her daughter..........

What happened to the puke smiley?

kalm wrote:

native wrote:

Further proof that you clearly hate Adam Smith and America.

CID1990 wrote:Not going to happen. It would destroy the Democratic Party, and even the moonbattiest Donks are not that stupid.

For starts, the donks would completely lose the black vote and the white-guilt vote. Those are what brought us the One in the first place.

I would love to see the complete and irreversible factionalization of the Democratic Party, but it is not going to happen. Obama will be their man in 2012, with no primary challenge.

But I thought her husband was our first black president....

CID1990 wrote:Not going to happen. It would destroy the Democratic Party, and even the moonbattiest Donks are not that stupid.

For starts, the donks would completely lose the black vote and the white-guilt vote. Those are what brought us the One in the first place.

I would love to see the complete and irreversible factionalization of the Democratic Party, but it is not going to happen. Obama will be their man in 2012, with no primary challenge.

There are still plenty of Dem moonbats left over from the 60's, and there is a great deal of panic among the more practical non-moonbats about the future of the party.

With lingering legitimate fear and genuine panic, a divided convention is still a possibility, Cid, just like 1968. Just watch. With recession looming, it can only get worse.

Thank goodness the Repubs did not win the Senate in 2010.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
If free trade was the only reason those things happened, and if there was a viable alternative, then yes, I and others would admit that. However, the reasons for the negatives you have cited have far more to do with other factors and the reality is, free trade is not going away. Choose to compete and innovate or fade away.

There isn't an alternative to competing.

For someone who is so wedded to protectionism and high tarriffs, it's rather odd to chastise someone else for their positions. How do you plan to unring the bell and return to an era of protectionism and tell me how Hawley Smoot helped and will help again?

You admitted in another thread that China still needs our debt which in essence means our markets. The same goes for the rest of the world. I haven't advocated "high tariffs", just fair tariffs. The loser would be businesses that choose to outsource poor labor and environmental practices. So nice dodge.

Oh please, you really can't be this dense, can you - actually resorting to the "dodge" accustation? So what is your idea of "fair tarriffs"? Something along the line of ones that only benefit the US and hopefully, misguidedly, tries to time travel us back to the 1950's? Yeah, China needs our markets, but we need their markets too. And we need South Korea's markets and Europe's markets and so on and so on. This isn't a world where the US is the only market that is needed, both by US companies and other companies. Your ideas seem to be entirely related to targeted picking of winners and losers as if we could effectively do that. The world is much more dynamic than you try to make it out to be. Changing the date to 1950 and then pressing the pause button indefinitely is akin to raising the white flag and saying we can't compete. How's that "fair"?

GannonFan wrote: ...This isn't a world where the US is the only market that is needed, both by US companies and other companies. Your ideas seem to be entirely related to targeted picking of winners and losers as if we could effectively do that. The world is much more dynamic than you try to make it out to be. Changing the date to 1950 and then pressing the pause button indefinitely is akin to raising the white flag and saying we can't compete. How's that "fair"?

GannonFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
You admitted in another thread that China still needs our debt which in essence means our markets. The same goes for the rest of the world. I haven't advocated "high tariffs", just fair tariffs. The loser would be businesses that choose to outsource poor labor and environmental practices. So nice dodge.

Oh please, you really can't be this dense, can you - actually resorting to the "dodge" accustation? So what is your idea of "fair tarriffs"? Something along the line of ones that only benefit the US and hopefully, misguidedly, tries to time travel us back to the 1950's? Yeah, China needs our markets, but we need their markets too. And we need South Korea's markets and Europe's markets and so on and so on. This isn't a world where the US is the only market that is needed, both by US companies and other companies. Your ideas seem to be entirely related to targeted picking of winners and losers as if we could effectively do that. The world is much more dynamic than you try to make it out to be. Changing the date to 1950 and then pressing the pause button indefinitely is akin to raising the white flag and saying we can't compete. How's that "fair"?

Kalm is stuck in Econ 101.

Imagine two countries...now imagine each produces only ONE product...

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Oh please, you really can't be this dense, can you - actually resorting to the "dodge" accustation? So what is your idea of "fair tarriffs"? Something along the line of ones that only benefit the US and hopefully, misguidedly, tries to time travel us back to the 1950's? Yeah, China needs our markets, but we need their markets too. And we need South Korea's markets and Europe's markets and so on and so on. This isn't a world where the US is the only market that is needed, both by US companies and other companies. Your ideas seem to be entirely related to targeted picking of winners and losers as if we could effectively do that. The world is much more dynamic than you try to make it out to be. Changing the date to 1950 and then pressing the pause button indefinitely is akin to raising the white flag and saying we can't compete. How's that "fair"?

Kalm is stuck in Econ 101.

Imagine two countries...now imagine each produces only ONE product...

You are being too generous, AZG.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Oh please, you really can't be this dense, can you - actually resorting to the "dodge" accustation? So what is your idea of "fair tarriffs"? Something along the line of ones that only benefit the US and hopefully, misguidedly, tries to time travel us back to the 1950's? Yeah, China needs our markets, but we need their markets too. And we need South Korea's markets and Europe's markets and so on and so on. This isn't a world where the US is the only market that is needed, both by US companies and other companies. Your ideas seem to be entirely related to targeted picking of winners and losers as if we could effectively do that. The world is much more dynamic than you try to make it out to be. Changing the date to 1950 and then pressing the pause button indefinitely is akin to raising the white flag and saying we can't compete. How's that "fair"?

Kalm is stuck in Econ 101.

Imagine two countries...now imagine each produces only ONE product...

With the exception of our recent bubble, our trade deficit has done nothing but increase since the free trade agreements of the 90's, 50,000 U.S. factories have closed and wages have been pretty much flat. Gannon will use the classic argument of "other factors" so it must be coincidence.

The one area that Gannon makes a solid point is the need for innovation. In the past, a good chunk of our innovation came from public investment in education and R&D. We can't afford to do that anymore thanks to conk economics. The big winner of course is the multinational corporations and banks who wouldn't exist without their birth home and the socialization of so much of their risks. But they no longer need us anymore.

Free trade is just an extension of trickle down economics with the same track record of success.

Oh, and my deepest apologies for attempting to simplify. It's been my experience that people who want to unnecessarily complicate discussions about money are car salesman and crooked bankers.