The problem is that they never use common sense and logic. GWSnotForBrains signed us up for two balloon mortgages for trillions of dollars. The tax cut for the wealthy and the Iraq War. Those items have compounded our problems just like those who tried to borrow their way out of debt with real estate balloon mortgages. GWSnotAndFriends sold us out. Clinton left with a realistic mathematical model to pay down the debt and then came two "entirely optional" balloon mortgages to use up any and all future gov't revenues. Thank you, GWSnotForBrains and friends. That would be Republicans. Those are the facts. The last ltime that happened was the late 1920's and it was the same deal. Check the Citigroup "plutonomy" analysis.
Can I get a poll answer that says "For about how long Democrats will blame Bush"?
Cause really, that's the thing.
Democrats during Clinton still blamed Reagan for things, and there's been blame for Reagan even still under Obama. Republicans do the same thing. Both sides, politically, when things are going back will look to blame the other side first. The fact that the OP is focusing on the Republicans blaming Obama while basically ignoring, other than a passing comment that seems to also be sniping at the Republicans, that for the past 3 years Democrats have been blaming the past administration for everything under the stars makes his agenda pretty obvious.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Not sure, how long will liberals blame Bush and the Republicans?
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.