JUST

>>1974188
The exact moment the democratic experiment became a failure.

>>1974188
>Minnesota
>Blue

Makes sense. There is a lot of Swedish heritage up there.

>>1974188
What went wrong?

>>1974201
It was Mondale's home state.

>>1974211
>Walter Frederick Mondale was born in Ceylon, Minnesota, the son of Claribel Hope (née Cowan), a part-time music teacher, and Theodore Sigvaard Mondale, a Methodist minister.[3][4][5] Walter's half-brother Lester Mondale became a Unitarian minister.[6] His paternal grandparents were Norwegian immigrants

See, I missed by half an inch.

>>1974204
>elect Reagan
>have gigantic economic boom
>have literally zero good reasons for replacing him

That's what happened

So this.... is the power.... of tax cuts and deficit spending....

Whoa....

>>1974239
LOL

Question: I know little about economics and American history but do Republicans only get in office because they promise tax cuts and deficit spending? Is it really true that job growth and the economy actually does better under Democrat regulation?

>>1974188
>Mondale's only electoral votes came from the District of Columbia, which has never given its electoral votes to a Republican candidate, and his home state of Minnesota, which he won by a mere 3,761 votes.
>Reagan was *this* close to an unprecedented 50 state sweep
What a based lad

>>1974244
Mate
Do you not realize how high the taxes were before Reagan
They were literally 90%

Even the liberals were fed up with that bullshit, which is why even jew-york voted for him.

>>1974244
Very complex subject that's interrelated with the global economy, Federal Reserve policy, and what's "hip" as far as legislative/executive policy is concerned.

Reagan had some great years for the economy, whether due to his policies or due to Paul Volcker's work with the Federal Reserve. But Clinton had many great years too. Bush Jr. had some horrible years. So did Obama. I don't think Republican or Democrat politicians are clear winners when it comes to economic policy, but I do think Democrats are clear winners when it comes to social programs, and I do think Republicans are clear winners when it comes strictly to "growing" the economy. However, social programs aren't necessarily a solution for the problems they address, and "growth" is not necessarily a useful goal in itself if it doesn't make the community any better.

>>1974273
This anon knows his shit. It's cool to dog Reagan now, but if you can remember the 70's you know exactly why he won so big.

>>1974188
Fucking Minnesota

File: the law of large numbers doesn't exist.jpg (145KB, 1921x1081px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1921x1081px

>>1974244
>>1974295

>>1974204
Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals who then voted blue.

>>1974188
>Percentage
>58.8% >40.6%

>States
>49 >1

>>1974317
>yfw ever since trump there has been a surge in rightwing grandpas on 4chan

>Reagan won California
Literally how?

>>1976208
He was governor of California for years and a famous actor there for even longer

>>1976208
Reagan was literally the one that started all the gun control in California because he didn't like the fact that niggers had guns.

>>1976292
Turns out the one thing that unites Republicans and Democrats is the terror of some black dudes in leather jackets were telling people about their legal rights and forming rifle shooting clubs.

>>1974188
back when the right can actually secure a popular vote

>>1974273
The "Golden Age" of the fifties that republicans love so much was full communism compared to post-Reagan society, and just now the Democrats had a neoliberal corporate shill for a candidate while the Republicans had a protectionist anti-free trade candidate.

Why the fuck is the world so weird?

>>1976208
California used to go solidly red for years. It turned blue due to demographic change, and since then has spiraled further down every since.

>>1976148
a better graph would be to check it towards the denbts too

>>1974200
>WAH, DEMOCRACY SUCKS WHEN PEOPLE I DON'T LIKE GET ELECTED!

>>1974244
Republicans get office because they dont promise open borders.

File: 1_debt_growth_percent_of_gdp_freakalytics.png (57KB, 784x584px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 784x584px

>>1979252

>>1979323
Clinton and Nixon did pretty good, overall.

>>1976208
>people literally can't remember when California was not a Democratic voting bloc anymore

Soon the same will happen to Texas. People will be surprised to know that once Texas was associated with libertarian gun-owners, instead of socialist mestizos

>>1979366
>once Texas was associated with libertarian gun-owners,

Texas was never libertarian.

>>1978805

Because politics in democracy is about aesthetics, not actual policy.

>>1979162
>down

>>1979329

Clinton also partially got some of the benefits of Reagan's policy, which heavily favors business interest, and used that windfall to cut the debt. It's hard to say just how much of the economic performance of a country in the four years of a president's reign is due to the actions of that president, or the previous president, or someone before that.

>>1979443
>due to the actions of that president, or the previous president, or someone before that.

This.

>>1979389
This. Texas is downright communism compared to Arizona especially when it comes to guns.

>>1979443
Realistically, the president's kind of hamstrung when it comes to economic policy compared to Congress. It's sort of a gamble. Either you get to take credit or you get blamed, but it's *mostly* out of your purview

>>1979763
Get the fuck out of my state steerfucker Arizona stronk

>>1979798
>implying I'm a Texan

>>1974204

Reagan was a good president so there was literally no reason to replace him

>>1979507
good thing america isn't a democracy and is instead a representative republic. get better educated teeb. lol

>>1982490
That's a form of democracy, retard. You're conflating direct democracy with democracy in general.

>>1974188
>California going red
I guarantee that'll never happen again.

>>1974201
I hate my state, please nuke us

>>1976148
>>1979323
Jesus Christ, is the Bush the worst president of States?

>look what all these poorly educated people that lived in fear of the USSR decided

Yea. Not surprised. Ignorant, fearful citizens can't be expected to make smart choices.

>>1982980
>don't had fear of Warsaw pact

File: trump does a concern.png (48KB, 252x222px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 252x222px

>>1982966
no

pic related

>>1976208
he was from California

>>1983457
What's bad about Trump?

>>1983569
He was from the midwest somewhere originally.

>>1974188

Mondale was the only U.S. politician to ever run on a platform of increasing taxes and reducing government spending. No wonder he got killed.

>>1979329
Clinton had the good sense to reach across the isle and so didn't hamstring the govenment with bullshit partisan politics. Getting Dems and Repubs to work together can work wonders, like balance the federal budget. The strong economy certainly favored that, but Obama's administration would have had zero chance even with the same windfall. Him and Bush Jr. have been utter retards and Bill's wife would have been no better.

>>1982966

I always thought it was a good thing the worst president in my life would have happened early on so that my prime years would always be positive or at least better than youth.

I will wait until September 2017 to answer that question now, but ain't got much hope.

File: Blog95.jpg (25KB, 350x524px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 350x524px

>>1983671

Don't play dumb with me you cunt

>>1983799
Well, at least I'm not Californian.

>>1982966
In recent memory? Without question.

Even right-wingers have almost completely disavowed him

>>1983805
Bush was shit, but there's hardly any difference between Bush and Obama.

>both multiplied the national debt
>both played world police in the Middle East because of Saudi/Israeli orders
>both expanded unconstitutional government surveillance

>>1983822
>t. some libcuck with zero education on american foreign policy the middle east or whatever

I swear literally all of you are embarrassments. perhaps if all of you weren't so poorly informed and educated you could actually make objective analysis. but nah. you brainwashed free associating feel history rather than research it aspies can kys tbqh.

>>1983671
>What's bad about Trump?
a literal meme with no political or military experience who is known for telling people that they're fired and attacks literally whos on twitter is now one of the most powerful people in the world

>>1983842
>not wanting to be a Jew/Saudi warmonger stooge on the American taxpayer payroll makes you a libcuck

Top lel Schlomo

>>1983843
So you prefer form over substance.

>>1983848
glad you just proved your ignorance my dude. go sperg about how your special brand of Islamic communism has never been tried before you autistic cuck.

>>1983854
>it's in America's best interests to remove Israel's enemies and pump trillions of dollars and thousands of lives into retarded military campaigns we're getting nothing out of

kys

>>1979419
That was beautifully stated.

>>1983864
>securing american interests is not in america's best interest.
neck yourself my kid.

>>1983843
Well is that any more memetic than a half Kenyan dindu stoner whose experience consisted of being a failed lawyer and a walking minstrel show?

>>1974188
>JUST
>59% vs 41%
meh

>>1982529
no that's literally what you're doing dumbcunt. stop projecting.

>>1983867
>bombing countries that are no threat to us and funding people who blow us up is securing our interests

lmao

>>1983870
WALTER PUT DOWN THE GUN

>>1983873
nice non-refutation. glad your circular logic helps you suck your own penis, you pathetic libcuck

>>1982966
Bush, Obama and FDR share the first place.

>>1979314
Neither do Democrats

>>1983879
You're the libcuck here since you obviously want to pursue the interests of dune coons and jews rather than the interests of white people. You haven't provided a single fucking argument how was Iraq or Lybia beneficial to us, so kindly fuck off if you can't scramble to find one.

>>1983868
>stoner

He smoked weed the same as Bush and Clinton, but he was never a stoner

>experience

He was a member of the Illinois Senate for three terms, served as a U.S. senator for one term, was a lawyer, a community organizer, and a teacher of constitutional law at the University of Chicago. While this isn't necessarily super impressive and he's still under experienced in comparison to many past presidents, he's still leagues ahead of Trump

>>1983936
Why do people never judge the quality of the experience? Like imagine someone claiming he has 30 years of experience as a truck driver while forgetting to mention he also crashed 10 trucks, killed several pedestrians and destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in goods.

Obama was a shit lawyer and Hillary was a downright catastrophic secretary of state. In my book being unproven is leagues better than being proven to be garbage.

>>1983843
>implying Eisenhower wasn't the last president with relevant military experience for commander in chief
>implying Trump wasn't elected because of his lack of political background and not despite of it
Wew, check this triggered libtard, lads.

>>1983879
>>1983896
Take it outside.

>>1983951
>Obama was a shit lawyer

I'm not really familiar with his record. Why do you say this? Anyway, even if true, it's only one aspect of his experience

Agreed on Hillary

>>1983951
>Obama was a shit lawyer
from all accounts he was not a bad lawyer, however he didn't really distinguish himself other than being a Harvard law graduate

>>1983953
>Trump was elected for his lack of political background
That would be a valid argument in favor of "triggered libtard" if he was actually an outsider and if he hadn't already sold out on half is appointments
Between slightly underachieving yes-men and literal washington insiders how is Trump supposed to achieve anything??? If I were you I'd spend less time fist-pumping and more time making sure Trump actually does what he promised to.

>>1983992
The guy hasn't even spent a day in office yet. Declaring him the worst president in US history is quite a stretch.

>>1984006
Okay, that is 100% true.
I didn't follow the reply chain I just took issue with one statement. That being said you should be concerned with some of Trump's preliminary steps if you want him to "drain the swamp."

>>1984006
This. This is literally the biggest fearmongering propaganda I've ever seen.

>>1984016
Are you underage? Did you forget 2000? Did you forget that a good deal Americans unironically thought a muslim-terrorist was going to be sworn in in 2009 and then set up death panels through the NHA.
this "fearmongering propoganda" is pretty standard as American politics goes

>>1984016
Oh we're just getting started. We're in this for four, likely eight more years. The fearmongering will ramp up to eleven.

>>1984033
No, I'm actually old enough to remember Democrats calling Reagan and Bush LITERALLY HITLER, my dad even told me they did the same thing to Nixon as well.

I'm just astounded by the amount of horseshit the media spout about Trump, it's something to fucking behold

>he will cause a stock market crash
>he will start WW3
>he will be impeached ASAP
>he will create right wing death camps for transquadriplegic amoebas of color
>he will let Putin annex America


Literally portraying him as Satan incarnate before a single day in office. At least with Bush the real shitfest didn't start until after Afghanistan and Iraq.

>>1984053
Reagan was the devil, though.

>>1984064
Reagan was pretty milquetoast if anything. I don't get why GOP praises him like the God Emperor while the Dems view him as the Devil, he was fucking average.

>>1984053
>>he will let Putin annex America
kek, hadn't heard this one yet

>>1984053
>he will cause the stock market to crash
I only ever heard that their might be a dip in the market if he got elected, which there was, and it got corrected withing a day
>he will start ww3
i heard that about Clinton, not about Trump
>he will be impeached ASAP
thats not fearmongering, unless you mean he'll do something that will warant him getting impeached, which was extremely common rhetoric for Obama's entire presidency, so yeah, pretty standard stuff
>he will let Putin annex America
again, i've never heard it, its not a common belief and its not even reported. Obviously im privy to the left "concerns" regarding Trumps plans with Russia

>>1984053
>he will create right wing death camps
noone believes this and the media doens't report it
quit pretending that democrats are concerned with doomsday scenarios
the left's resistance to a Trump presidency isn't even worth talking about because it happens after EVERY election and the rhetoric is pretty damn tame compared to 2000

>>1983951
>Obama was a shit lawyer and Hillary was a downright catastrophic secretary of state.

Neither one of those statements is correct. But I suppose the truth matters less than memes.

>>1984100
>I only ever heard that their might be a dip in the market if he got elected

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/krugman-trump-global-recession-2016-231055
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-market-could-crash-if-donald-trump-is-elected-2016-10-31
http://fortune.com/2016/11/08/donald-trump-stocks-crash/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/16/investing/mark-cuban-stocks-tank-donald-trump/
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/26/investing/donald-trump-first-debate/

>i heard that about Clinton, not about Trump

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/730440/Donald-Trump-world-war-three-will-Republic-president-elect-trigger-new-global-conflicts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-d-taylor/donald-trumps-recipe-for-_1_b_9527534.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/5/23/1529460/-Would-Donald-Trump-start-World-War-3-by-accident-or-on-purpose-Does-it-matter
http://www.ibtimes.com/will-donald-trump-trigger-world-war-3-republican-wants-more-ships-troops-military-2443915

>he will let Putin annex America

That was a funny hyperbole on my part, but there's numerous media outlets unironically claiming Trump is a Putin's puppet / KGB agent.

>>1983843
He isn't even president yet.
Give the man a chance to fuck up first.

File: 547b7d011d1c8a6192dbd63e5f195fed62277ba76ae06360fb4cc0808753f289.jpg (7KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x250px

>>1984064
sources?

>>1984126
>clickbait articles that don't actually read like their titles and are just like ones from 2008
oh wow its nothing
>articles about trump starting ww3
Okay, it still doesn't change the fact that I heard the same thing about Clinton numerous times, and that similar rhetoric has been used by Americans since the cold war began.

>>1984146
>oh wow it's nothing
Moving the goalposts: the post lmao

>>1984146
I think what makes the WW3 fears different is that in Clinton's case they were actually warranted, while Trump actively campaigned for peace with Russia.

>>1984152
The goalposts were "there is more fearmongering than ever before" when you clearly haven't demonstrated that anything has changed.

>>1984155
>Clinton's case they were actually waranted
They may have had a better reason but in 60 years of being at odds with Russia, there hasn't been a WW3, not to mention Republican's basically worship Reagan for doing the same thing (in a different era).

>>1984169
>in 60 years of being at odds with Russia, there hasn't been a WW3
"It hasn't happened yet so it will never happen"

>Republican's basically worship Reagan for doing the same thing
Do you mean Afghanistan? Not even close. There's the parallel with arming the islamic rebels, but Clinton actually wanted to enact a no fly zone over Syria where Russian air force operates with the permission of the Syrian government. That's pretty much a declaration of war.

>>1984183
Ike openly pursued a policy called "brinkmanship"

Nixon flew nuclear armed bombers continuously from the US to the border of Soviet airspace and then back again for days.

It isn't that uncommon for the US-Russian relationship to get this heated.

>>1982529
That's not conflating. Direct democracy is democracy proper. Other "forms" are fraud intended to prevent actual democracy.

>>1984197
>Nixon flew nuclear armed bombers continuously from the US to the border of Soviet airspace and then back again for days.

We still do this and so does Russia. But that's leagues different than the no-fly zone. Imagine if Russia said they're gonna shoot down our aircrafts over Germany or Britain - that's pretty much the equivalent of what Clinton wanted to do.

File: 1478608308373.jpg (61KB, 600x551px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 600x551px

>>1984201
>he wants literal rule by mob
get out of here you joker

>>1984155
>I think what makes the WW3 fears different is that in Clinton's case they were actually warranted

Wtf am I reading

>>1984183
>"It hasn't happened yet so it will never happen"
Im saying that the US and Russia have been at higher tension and nothing happend.
>Do you mean Afghanistan?
no Im talking about this
>>1984197
Reagan went out of his way to oppose Russia, he increased military spending and strengthened American global hegemony and Republicans applaud him for it. Clinton's proposed extending sanctions of Russia and thats about it.
I'm not saying there isn't tons of unwarranted fearmongering towards Trump, im saying that its pretty meaningless given American political history. Didn't the founding fathers accuse each other of colluding with "monarchists" during the first 4 or 5 presidential elections? Yeah.

>>1984210
>We still do this

lord no

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

>>1984225
Nixon ended detente and increased military spending. That's not "going out of the way". Actually setting rules of engagement to shoot down Russian airplanes over a country allied to Russia however does constitute war.

>>1984234
>Nixon
*Reagan, sorry.

>>1984234
Acktually, Carter was the one who ended detente.

>>1984236
I openly opposed Russia, making vague threats....and by "increased military spending" i mean he literally stated it was to deter Russia. The pressure that he put on Russia in the form of speeches and military spending is widely used to credit him for being a major component to the end of the Soviet Union/Cold War. Clinton's plans are tame compared to that and yet she's supposedly going to start ww3? Nonsense. For the record, I don't support her foreign policy goals in regards to Russia and I'm NOT trying to justify them. They're 1000x more counterproductive than they are dangerous.

>>1984243
I think we're both right now that I think about it. Carter definitely made the first step towards ending it.

>>1984256
>I
*Reagan, sorry. lol.

>>1984256
>Clinton's plans

Out of curiosity, do you actually know what plans we're talking about? I'm talking specifically about the ROA over Syria, not about economic sanctions.

>>1984257
>both right
there are 3 people in this convo btw

>>1984257
Well, he pulled out of the 1980 Olympics and began funding the Mujaheddin.

I think that's a pretty big gesture.

>>1983880
>FDR was bad meme

can we please kill this

>>1984262
I just meant the general stance towards Russia. The no-flyzone hasn't been commented on by Trump but Pence said he supports it. I kinda thought the no fly zone was going to be a mutual agreement anyway. Am I wrong? I really am not that informed on that specific issue

>>1983880
Obama is probably going to be vindicated hard by history, being sandwiched between Shrub and Drumpf.

>>1984292
FDR has 2 sides
His fiscal conservative nature and his openness to trying new ideas. The latter helped him recover the economy, the latter had him balance the budget and let the economy slide back into depression again in 1938 before WW2 helped out again.

>>1984293
Pence is a cuck with no power and was only picked to gain evangelical votes, what he thinks about Syria is completely irrelevant.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/09/politics/trump-pence-syria-disagreement/

>hasn't been commented on by Trump
It was, he's against it.

>mutual agreement
No, it would be unilateral. I reckon she'd try pushing it through the UNSC but it would get vetoed by Russia. She was asked about what will she do if Russian airplane breaks the no-fly zone, her reply was basically IDUNNOLOL, I think we both know the answer though.

>>1984312
>the *former had him balance the budget and let the economy slide
woops

>>1984312

he wasn't totally fiscally conservative. he was near autistic about balancing the budget, but he was also in favor of destorying the gold standard, which, at that time, was not conservative. idk if that had an impact on the next depression in 1938

>>1984315
> I think we both know the answer though.
You mean the Obama "this red line is meaningless lol"?

>>1984315
Alright fair enough.
>I think we both know the answer though
Actually I don't. What do you think? What is the recent US policy on it? What are some recent no-fly zone incidents? My assumption is that a no-fly zone would simply be a political measure, and the only thing that would happen would be the US would threaten some sanctions and shit, but i don't really know the track record on stuff like that. Also, I assume Clinton would be talked out of it be one of Obama's staffers considering their cabinets would probably have been nearly identical. I also don't see democrats going along with it, unless they are fooled by the "its to protect civilians and hospitals" thing. That certainly looks like wishful thinking on my part though...

>>1982933
how bout just your house?

>>1984362
True, I was mostly budget part. His embracing of Keynes shows he wasn't necessarily fiscally conservative, I mean, balancing the budget is common sense, just not during a depression

>>1983778
Despite all of this, there is a good chance that Clinton will be remembered for getting a blowjob, and being memed about his wife. Sad.

File: zB7tri.png (3MB, 2364x1072px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2364x1072px

there are actual neomccarthyite libcucks ITT smelling their own farts

>>1983778
It's not like Obama hasn't tried to reach across the isle until ONE TERM PRESIDENT, and Clinton was basically trying to run as a centrist Republican.

>>1984648
nice meme, but your wrong and underage& dudester

>>1984222
The No Fly Zone over Syria. Even Obama's guys said it would trigger a war.

>>1984142
no fuck that