I am far from stupid my source are many but if you like to see some go on youtube and watch the clinton chronicles or watch alex jones info on your buddy clinton

Mentioning Alex Jones in a serious manner belies the 'I am far from stupid'.

One of the points I made is that when Clinton cooperated and reached across the aisle the whole country benefited. So we absolutely agree on that. He could have been hardcore partisan ideologue like Obama and only work with his own party (and sometimes even excluding them), but he decided it was in the best interest of the country to compromise. So I give him points for that.

I also agree with you that no president intends to destroy the country, including Obama. That sort of evil motivation theory comes from tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy types. But Obama does have a particular far-left ideology that he believes is good for the country and his opponents don't. I can't address the claim that there are members of Congress who are against him for just racial reasons. I know that many times it is asserted that disagreement with Obama is only because of his race, and I think more often than not it is far-left tin-foil hat types that believe this. Criticism comes with the territory, and sometimes it's below-the-belt criticism.

Not sure who you mean about Bush pardoning the Enron CEO, because he didn't pardon Jeff Skelling. He's in prison right now and isn't scheduled for release until 2019. On the other hand, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Even Jimmy Carter said that Clinton only pardoned him because he gave him large gifts, and Carter called it "disgraceful."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Skilling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich

Clinton also commuted the sentences of Puerto Rican FALN terrorists, ostensibly to help Hillary's chances of getting elected senator in New York. Clinton pardoned Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, allegedly as part of a quid pro quo scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_pardon_controversy

I am a alex jones fan lol 😊

I never even heard of this guy. But I have heard of the young Turks that guy is an idiot who wears cheap suits. You can trust anyone who wears a cheap suit.

Alex Jones is somewhat of a conspiracy theorist and kind of a nut that being said I like Infowars. He has good points sometimes and sometimes he is a little wacky

"somewhat of a conspiracy theorist"?
"kind of a nut"?

There are two understatements. lol

"somewhat of a conspiracy theorist"

yes. the way ted bundy was somewhat of a bad date.

I have to attempt to correct some misinformation stated above.

At point 1, you give credit to Clinton and Republicans working together to pass a tax cut which supposedly spurred an economic revival. That is called supply side economics and that is not how it was done. What happened is Clinton/Gore implemented DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS. They opted to spur the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates on bonds by balancing the budget. Allow me to explain...

When the national budget is in the red, the federal government must borrow money to make up the difference, to pay their bills for that year. The money borrowed then goes into a pile of debt called the national debt. National deficit, and national debt. Two different things.

In order to raise the money needed, when the budget is in the red, the government uses the Federal Reserve's Open Market Operations to raise US bond interest rates so that the bonds become an attractive investment. US Bond sales raise the money needed. US Bonds that pay higher interest rates are more attractive to investors and "crowd out" the private sector corporate bond market...the nation taking precedence over the individual corporation.

When interest rates go up on bonds, they go up on almost everything else that is debt issued by banks: credit cards, car loans, mortages, student loans, personal loans, intrabank loans, all the interest rates rise. When interest rates go up, it's harder to borrow money...the economy slows down. Tight money policy.

If you balance the budget, you can lower the interest rates on bonds...and on everything else, because you no longer need to raise money through bond sales to pay the government's bills. Money across the board becomes cheaper to rent, and because money begins to exist the moment it is borrowed...the money supply increases. Individuals and businesses all begin to borrow more money, economic expansion takes place. Businesses and Corporations use borrowed money to expand. Employment goes up. Unemployment goes down, IE Demand Side Economics.

Clinton/Gore decided to implement all of this by balancing the budget through Congress. Every single Republican voted against balancing the budget in the Senate. The vote was 50/50, Dem versus Rep. Albert Gore as the President of the Senate became the tie breaking vote. The rest is history. The economy was set free, and the stock market became what was known at the time as a "Super Bull". It just kept going up. Many people became millionaires under Clinton/Gore. I live in New York City. I remember very vividly, the National Debt Clock in Times Square literally had a sheet thrown over it. They stopped the clock. We had surpluses. It was surreal.

That's what actually happened, and it's not open to debate or controversy.

On point number 3, that Hillary also got us into Iraq. Hillary was a member of Congress at the time, and she like many in Congress voted to give W conditional authorization to attack Iraq with the precondition that the weapons inspectors be allowed to finish their inspection. You see, this is why the founders put the power to declare war under the authority of Congress....because more heads are often smarter than one. What does W do? He pulls Hans Blix and the rest of the inspectors out and attacks. That is what one single dummy is capable of. Total disaster.

There are a lot of half truths in your other points Faithful, that I won't bother to tussle with. I just wanted to touch on the points that were 180 degrees from the truth.

thank you for the explanation and clarification alfa romeo.

You're very welcome. Most of the time the media never took the time to explain it because it would've been like having to give the public a crash course in economics. I don't think the media even respects the public enough to explain such things. The problem with that is the lack of an explanation allowed others to come in and attempt to rewrite history.

The million dollar question is WHY did the Republican Congress want to keep the United States in debt and wipe out the future surpluses. The only answer I can come up with is they wanted to dry up the discretionary income of the United States in the hopes of starving off social programs and social welfare.

Alfa Romeo, that was just a straw man argument. Let me explain:

First, demand-side economics does NOT mean balancing the budget. A president can be either a supply-sider or a demand-sider and balance the budget. If it is possible to do, all presidents should have a balanced budget.

Second, demand-side economics, as commonly understood, is a synonym for Keynesian economic theory, the theory propounded by British economist John Maynard Keynes. He proposed increased government spending, discouraged private business investment and encouraged public spending on consumer goods. Yes, Bill Clinton was a Keynesian, but he could have been a Monetarist or an Austrian and still balanced the budget. Rand Paul, a near-libertarian who leans to Austrian economics would have also balanced the budget.

Third, the Congressional GOP didn't vote for Clinton's first budget not because they didn't want it balanced, but because they disagreed with his priorities, what he chose to spend money on and what he chose not to. So that was a misattribution of motives and another straw man.

Fourth, sometimes Keynesianism works and other times it does not. It can create inflation and decrease growth.

Fifth, in your follow-up post you repeat your straw man fallacy by asking "WHY did the Republican Congress want to keep the United States in debt and wipe out future surpluses"? It assumes that was their intention rather than a different one, such as increased military spending for national defense. Your own answer of "they wanted to dry up discretionary income of the United States in hopes of starving off social programs and social welfare." This is another fallacy called Poisoning the Well and it's almost an Argumentum ad Hitlerum. Why not just call them all Nazis?
If you were to state that you disagree with GOP priorities that would have been fairer and more accurate in that it doesn't twist their motives. You don't win arguments by misstating the motives of your political opponents, you also lose all credibility.

Maybe this country will get its shit together. When I listen to Trump speak, I can relate to what he's saying. When I hear Hilary and Bernie speak, I become dumbfounded to why people are cheering. "Free, free, free", is why they cheer. Nothing is free. There are too many college graduates with honors that dont know how to perform an oil change. We need to create a workforce of skilled laborers. Nowadays you hear people constantly complain. Nobody seems to be proud of this country. It's a fucking shame. This country was based on the premise of work hard and be rewarded. Today's society is entitled for some reason.

Maybe this country will get its shit together. When I listen to Trump speak, I can relate to what he's saying. When I hear Hilary and Bernie speak, I become dumbfounded to why people are cheering. "Free, free, free", is why they cheer. Nothing is free. There are too many college graduates with honors that dont know how to perform an oil change. We need to create a workforce of skilled laborers. Nowadays you hear people constantly complain. Nobody seems to be proud of this country. It's a fucking shame. This country was based on the premise of work hard and be rewarded. Today's society is entitled for some reason.

Job growth for this month was at and all time low 30 thousand that is nothing. Yet unemployment is at an all time low 4.7 because they are no longer looking for work, Obama and Hillary supporters thinks that's great.

Kids graduating college are not going to find jobs under Hillary.

My wife's old law firm discontinued two departments.

On another note I don't play golf. I wonder people who do what do you think about that pga tournament moving from thrumps doral to Mexico.

Relax Faithful, it's just "the internets". No one was attacking you personally. The economy is way bigger than you.

Let me try to answer some of your quotations below:



At the end of the day, balancing the budget is what is best for the country and it's citizens. You either want to balance it or you don't. Clinton/Gore IE Yale/Harvard gotherdone. The Reps were against it, demand and supply side economics notwithstanding, for reasons that only they fully understood...or cared about.



Coulda Shoulda Woulda. Bottom line, you either balance the budget or you don't. Bottom line, Al Gore had to break the tie in the Senate and push the cry babies aside so that everyone else could move on. It's as simple as that.



Not at all, you just bolstered my argument and theory as to why the Reps didn't want a balanced budget. They would have rather to push the country a few steps closer to insolvency....just to win a short term battle on spending priorities...for that fiscal year. Pathetic!



That's why economics is called "the dismal science". You just can't ever seem to alleviate poverty, can you? Keynesianism works within the confines of capitalism, and capitalism is imperfect. So there you go.




There's a law someone made up, called Godwin's Law. That law states that the longer an internet conversation lasts, the greater the probability that someone will compare something to Hitler and/or the Nazis. Thanks for just about proving that right. But back to the topic at hand, again, your earlier comment shows that you actually agreed with me, that Reps had their own priorities and pitiful excuses for being against balancing the budget...and pushing the country a few steps closer to financial insolvency...thus endangering the national security of the United States...by threating the financial foundation of our military...which is supreme worldwide. America's military supremacy does not only rest on scientific innovation. It rests on money, lots and lots of money.




My wording clearly showed that I was speculating on the motives of the Reps, not that I knew it for sure. Regardless, there is no excuse worthy of even mentioning as to why someone would want to endanger the national security of the United States, and of the men women and children who reside in it, by pushing the country a few steps closer to financial collapse.

This is just the internets, calm down. Obviously I had enough credibility for you to respond. Just enjoy the public discussion and don't take this stuff so seriously.

Alfa, if I was anymore relaxed I'd be sleeping. I never said that anyone was attacking me personally, but if it makes you feel better to put that out there, be my guest. Responding to what you wrote has nothing to do whether or not you have credibility. So to make you feel even better, I won't respond to to your reply and you can take it that none of your points had any credibility. But I do respond to a lot of things that don't have credibility because there's a need to correct the record. When I wrote a piece debunking "The Last Testament of Lucky Luciano" it wasn't because I thought it was credible, but because it was misleading people who didn't know any better. That's what I did in this case.

BTW, Internets? I didn't know that there was more than one internet.

Getting back to Thrump at his last rally. The anarkists decided to try an intimate people comming out of his rally's. Like hitting them from behind. But evidently they can't afford to hire real gang bangers. They use punk Latinos kids hit women in the face with eggs and guys from behind.

Then they think they can burn small American flags while holding Mexican flags. They can't even afford to burn full size American flags?

It could make a normal person start to see Latinos in an unfair way because of seeing shit like this.

Then Democrates say let's not build walls. Mexicans say come into Mexico illegally you wind up in a Mexican prison maybe we should do that also. Commit a crime here get locked up for ten years.

I was making fun of one of your heroes, Bush. That's called using a Bushism. Saying internets was how he used to talk. He probably still talks like that. Sad isn't it?

Another straw man? The fallacies just keep on coming. Please find the source that shows Bush is one of my heroes (beside your imagination, of course). Since this is news to me I'd really love to find out.

Makes me angry. I could barely bare to watch these people act like complete morons and savages.

What an embarrassment to Mexican people.

They're so stupid that they don't even realize how much they're helping Trump.

They are total trash and pollute the beautiful state of california.
Hopefully Trump wins which i am confiident he will.

Thrump talks to much. He should stay on the job issue. Mexican and blacks are fucked more on not being able to get work then anybody.

I still say people want to work. Put them in trade schools then let the private sector help pay for it and with placement.

Look at Germany tradesmen is big there. It should be big here. Have a trade you can work anywhere. You have work and you have freedom.

Put people on welfair ethnic people would rather be self employed.

That is what Thrump should talk about and nothing else.

You think we want to buy things from other countries I don't.

Typical scumbag liberals and thugs.

"Democrats: The only group of people that could simultaneously be excited about their first female nominee for president while claiming that gender is a meaningless social construct that ought to be rejected as a relic of history" - Andy Alexander

Very ugly video. I've never seen a presidential contest in the U.S. like this one where those who disagree attempt to physically intimidate and crush one another. In a contest between Hillary and/or Bernie versus Trump, I could see myself voting Trump to get some of these lawless people out of the country. The other side is trying to bully those who have the right to vote, and it's not right.

If Hillary is elected and the economy tanks. If she manages to put an end to private gun owner ship like it is in Australia she likes that system which is no private citizens can own gun. No borders at all. Raise taxes even on the lower middle class and tell you how to act and think.

I can see a real civil war in the United States by the year 2024. It won't be pretty.

Still waiting for you to show me where I wrote that Bush is one of my "heroes."

Aside from that, you are right in your point that violence turns people off and that these anti-Trump rioters who physically attack Trump supporters and destroy property are going to make more people vote for him.

All HIllary wants is revenge against Bill Clinton and men in general. She will do nothing to benefit half the United States, and that's the males in the country.

It was a joke