If There Was No Obama There Would Be No Trump!

Actually it is. A big part of it. A democratic president didn't cause republicans to give trump the nomination Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

For one thing, nobody has the nomination yet. And this has nothing to do with 16yrs ago. Dumbass.

Going to repeat what I said on another thread: The recent failure train of presidents is all because some deluded asshat named Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton - which gave us GW - which gave us Odumbass - which will likely give us either a Megalomaniacal blowhard or the most criminal candidate ever to run for President. And it all goes back to Ross...wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't revealed in the future that Ross was propped up by the DNC.

Going to repeat what I said on another thread: The recent failure train of presidents is all because some deluded asshat named Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton - which gave us GW - which gave us Odumbass - which will likely give us either a Megalomaniacal blowhard or the most criminal candidate ever to run for President. And it all goes back to Ross...wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't revealed in the future that Ross was propped up by the DNC. Originally Posted by p98397

Ross Perot has nothing to do with 2016, nothing. And he was as big of a megalomaniac as Trump. Do you think he was a lackey for the DNC? No fucking way. He was in it to win it. Just like Trump. Perot did get 19% of the vote which is admirable for an independent. Most came at the Republicans expense. But Trump is running as a Republican. Like Perot, he's not a true conservative. I really think there's a large portion of the electorate that is fed up with politicians. Hence Trumps success so far.

Going to repeat what I said on another thread: The recent failure train of presidents is all because some deluded asshat named Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton - which gave us GW - which gave us Odumbass - which will likely give us either a Megalomaniacal blowhard or the most criminal candidate ever to run for President. And it all goes back to Ross...wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't revealed in the future that Ross was propped up by the DNC. Originally Posted by p98397

WRONG, it started earlier...

I love reading this shit...

I love reading this shit... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

you like eating it too...

Ross Perot has nothing to do with 2016, nothing. And he was as big of a megalomaniac as Trump. Do you think he was a lackey for the DNC? No fucking way. He was in it to win it. Just like Trump. Perot did get 19% of the vote which is admirable for an independent. Most came at the Republicans expense. But Trump is running as a Republican. Like Perot, he's not a true conservative. I really think there's a large portion of the electorate that is fed up with politicians. Hence Trumps success so far. Originally Posted by bambino

Ross Perot has everything to do with 2016. Running as a "common sense conservative," he took 19%. Daddy Bush lost to Slick Willie by 7%. Without that election, we wouldn't have had the train wreck of successive presidencies like we have had - no Willie, no GW, no Odumbass, and nobody would even remember who Hillary was. Each Oval Idiot has been voter reaction to the previous Oval Idiot - with the public trying to press the ideological reset button every time. Without the constant backlash, it is likely there is no opportunity for Trump to exploit.

Ross Perot has everything to do with 2016. Running as a "common sense conservative," he took 19%. Daddy Bush lost to Slick Willie by 7%. Without that election, we wouldn't have had the train wreck of successive presidencies like we have had - no Willie, no GW, no Odumbass, and nobody would even remember who Hillary was. Each Oval Idiot has been voter reaction to the previous Oval Idiot - with the public trying to press the ideological reset button every time. Without the constant backlash, it is likely there is no opportunity for Trump to exploit. Originally Posted by p98397

You're almost there!

Ross Perot has everything to do with 2016. Running as a "common sense conservative," he took 19%. Daddy Bush lost to Slick Willie by 7%. Without that election, we wouldn't have had the train wreck of successive presidencies like we have had - no Willie, no GW, no Odumbass, and nobody would even remember who Hillary was. Each Oval Idiot has been voter reaction to the previous Oval Idiot - with the public trying to press the ideological reset button every time. Without the constant backlash, it is likely there is no opportunity for Trump to exploit. Originally Posted by p98397

Was Daddy Bush a conservative? Read my lips, no new taxes? If you use your logic you might as well go back to Nixon. Every election cycle is different. Different candidates, different dynamics. Maybe there are others here, or anywhere that agree with your theory. I'd like to here from them. It's the first time I heard of it.

I love reading this shit... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Who gives a fuck.

Was Daddy Bush a conservative? Read my lips, no new taxes? If you use your logic you might as well go back to Nixon. Every election cycle is different. Different candidates, different dynamics. Maybe there are others here, or anywhere that agree with your theory. I'd like to here from them. It's the first time I heard of it. Originally Posted by bambino

Who said anything about conservatism? I certainly didn't. My commentary was about our prior 3 idiots in the WH and the assclown that started THIS particular cycle and set the scene for THIS particular election. Without those 3 particular idiots in a row, there isn't the public backlash that is very likely going to result in a Trump v Hillary general election...in no other time in the history of this country would EITHER candidate be considered viable.

Who said anything about conservatism? I certainly didn't. My commentary was about our prior 3 idiots in the WH and the assclown that started THIS particular cycle and set the scene for THIS particular election. Without those 3 particular idiots in a row, there isn't the public backlash that is very likely going to result in a Trump v Hillary general election...in no other time in the history of this country would EITHER candidate be considered viable. Originally Posted by p98397

You and Gyorgy...

Who said anything about conservatism? I certainly didn't. My commentary was about our prior 3 idiots in the WH and the assclown that started THIS particular cycle and set the scene for THIS particular election. Without those 3 particular idiots in a row, there isn't the public backlash that is very likely going to result in a Trump v Hillary general election...in no other time in the history of this country would EITHER candidate be considered viable. Originally Posted by p98397

There were 17 Republican candidates at the start. What Ross Perot did over 20yrs ago has nothing to do with Trump leading at this point. Zippity doda.

You've got a bunch of republicans around the country voting for a person running on the republican ticket who basically represents the id of the republican party . . .and this is Obama's fault. Now that is rich. Thanks for the early morning laugh.

You've got a bunch of republicans around the country voting for a person running on the republican ticket who basically represents the id of the republican party ... and this is Obama's fault. Now that is rich. Thanks for the early morning laugh. Originally Posted by eatfibo

That's all you got? No intelligent response, let alone a rebuttal, to the original post? You're losing it, fido.

"For Mr. Obama, principled opposition to his policies is always illegitimate or motivated by bad faith.

Like the President’s nonstop moral lectures about 'our values' and 'who we are as Americans,' by which he means liberal values and who we are as Democrats, he reads his critics out of politics. No wonder so many Americans feel disenfranchised and powerless."


I have another theory too, which I have stated before in this forum. I agree with the other poster (p98397) who said we often vote against the previous “Oval Idiot”. Odumbo has many flaws, but the area where he may be weakest is in his negotiating skills. At home, he has consistently refused to engage in normal political give-and-take and only wants to shove his agenda down the throats of the opposition. Abroad, he does exactly the opposite and gives away the store to the Iranians and the Russians. Whether or not you think my characterization is accurate, it is a perception shared by many voters. Trump has skillfully played on this Odumbo weakness by bragging about his negotiating skills and handing out autographed copies of “The Art of the Deal” at every campaign rally.