The Next President of the United States: II

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
321

[quote]H factor wrote:

If he had a majority you would have seen a different outcome.

This is exactly what the left says about Obama. If Republicans hadn’t obstructed him he would have been able to make more good things happen.[/quote]

But Reagan never had a majority not for one single second. Obama did have a majority and passed a government take over of health care. He could have done plenty of other things as well…

Change it? It came to be under GW and I have no doubt that it will never go away no matter which party is in charge. It’s one of those things that they all agree on.

You poor guy that’s just…I mean…I feel really bad for you. Here’s an idea buy your six pack on Saturday and then drink it on Sunday. I did it!! I solved your problem :slight_smile:

Yeah, I do agree with this one. I think we should have open sports betting over the Internet too. I think this has to do with the many millions of dollars that Casinos give to republicans.

But that IS governments main responsibility. Let’s not lose site of what is actually important.

Ha ha a Reagan Clinton comparison. Keep in mind that Bill Clinton never received a majority of the vote. He won both times because Perot stole republican votes. Okay I’m off track sorry. But the dems have no comparison to Reagan. And as I’ve said Reagan never had a republican congress to back him up.

There was a difference both foreign policy wise and domestically. Remember how the press berated GW because “the world hated us”. But under Obama the world hates us even more but the press remains silent.

Plenty of differences from left wingnut judges being appointed under Obama to pipeline legislation not being signed, taxes being hiked. Political appointments like Holder as attorney general no Bush would not have done that. The differences are night and day.

Obama adding more to the debt than all previous 43 Presidents combined!!

Oh there are plenty of differences my friend. Some glaring, some subtle but they are there for certain.

322

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I agree but I feel that GW was certainly not a real conservative. As I mentioned in another thread I don’t want anymore Bush’s in the White House. That goes for Christie and all others who are middle left in my opinion. If Reagan had both houses of congress republican you would have seen an amazing shift in spending but it was not to be.[/quote]

Erm… What about all the Republicans in the House and Senate who must have voted to pass all those measures?

Are they all RINOS too?[/quote]

If he had a majority you would have seen a different outcome.
[/quote]

I was referring to your comment on Bush II being a RINO, not Reagan.

H Factor wrote that Bush II did some things that seem to go against common Republican talking-points, and that he had the entirety of Congress with him for a couple of years.

You responded by saying that Bush II was a RINO.

But I think you’re ignoring the fact that the Republicans in both the House and Senate went along, and in fact (IIRC) they were the ones who came up with a lot of those ideas.

323

Yeah, it’s kind of a moot point, but when I hear Zeb’s arguments for why we should vote Republican it sounds like this: “We had a good Republican President who took the White House 35 years ago therefore vote Republican.” I probably don’t feel the same way about Reagan as many, but even if I granted him as being much better than I do it’s been a long damn time.

324

Anyways, back on topic:

South Carolina Freedom Summit. Didn’t get a chance to watch any videos, from what I read seems like Walker was pretty solid. I think he’s moving his way into true front runner status, but it’s still really early.

325

[quote]H factor wrote:
Yeah, it’s kind of a moot point, but when I hear Zeb’s arguments for why we should vote Republican it sounds like this: “We had a good Republican President who took the White House 35 years ago therefore vote Republican.” I probably don’t feel the same way about Reagan as many, but even if I granted him as being much better than I do it’s been a long damn time. [/quote]

Claiming that I want you, or anyone, to vote republican because of Ronald Reagan is nonsense. I never said such a thing. I used him as an example of what can be done by someone who was not only conservative but could well communicate his point of view to the American public (unlike GW Bush).

You are ignoring my primary point. Nor did you respond to the list of differences that I pointed out.

Again, there are major differences between the two parties. Most know this and accept it. That doesn’t always mean that the republicans will get their way, or even the candidate that happens to capture the White House is fully on board with the entire republican platform- people are different as you know. And sometimes, like Obama is proving, the parties agree on certain key points. But that doesn’t mean that there are no major differences. I read far too many times on these threads (not by you especially) how the parties are the same and that is a foolish commentary.

Looking back over the past 65 years the country has been (and will be) far better off under republican leadership.

While one can always point out exceptions to the rule that does not change the fact that the list of differences are endless and proven:

-Appointment of judges, Dems appoint more liberal, republicans conservative.

-Bills that protect the environment tend to be signed by dems even if they are nonsensical such as the recent pipeline bill that Obama did not sign.

-Taxes are almost always raised during a democrats reign and lowered during a republicans. If you disagree point out the exception!

-Foreign policy wise republicans usually take a harder line.

-The recent back turning of Obama to Israel is unprecedented and would not, and never has taken place under a republican Presidency.

There are many, many differences between the two parties which are undeniable.

326

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Again, there are major differences between the two parties. the fact that
…the list of differences are endless and proven:

-Appointment of judges, Dems appoint more liberal, republicans conservative.

-Bills that protect the environment tend to be signed by dems even if they are nonsensical such as the recent pipeline bill that Obama did not sign.

-Taxes are almost always raised during a democrats reign and lowered during a republicans. If you disagree point out the exception!

-Foreign policy wise republicans usually take a harder line.

-The recent back turning of Obama to Israel is unprecedented and would not, and never has taken place under a republican Presidency.

There are many, many differences between the two parties which are undeniable.
[/quote]

You continue to beat this drum…so much is a matter of perspective…

Judges…you mean judges more likely to support 4th amendment protections rather than sign any warrant presented to them?

Pipeline Bill…plenty of people work in areas of the economy that would be damaged by the pipeline bill…my industry estimates a 30% decline in business if the pipeline is built. This has little to do with the environment; just big business protecting their profits.

Taxes…if you confine the argument to income taxes you are probably correct; taxes in general and it’s probably a wash. Deficit spending is certainly a wash…only two administrations have doubled the debt, both republican.

Foreign policy…harder line…at what cost and exactly who benefits?

Israel…O.K.; I’ll give you that one…

…and I’ve never pulled a blue lever in my life.

328

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Again, there are major differences between the two parties. the fact that
…the list of differences are endless and proven:

-Appointment of judges, Dems appoint more liberal, republicans conservative.

-Bills that protect the environment tend to be signed by dems even if they are nonsensical such as the recent pipeline bill that Obama did not sign.

-Taxes are almost always raised during a democrats reign and lowered during a republicans. If you disagree point out the exception!

-Foreign policy wise republicans usually take a harder line.

-The recent back turning of Obama to Israel is unprecedented and would not, and never has taken place under a republican Presidency.

There are many, many differences between the two parties which are undeniable.
[/quote]

You continue to beat this drum…so much is a matter of perspective…

Judges…you mean judges more likely to support 4th amendment protections rather than sign any warrant presented to them?

Pipeline Bill…plenty of people work in areas of the economy that would be damaged by the pipeline bill…my industry estimates a 30% decline in business if the pipeline is built. This has little to do with the environment; just big business protecting their profits.

Taxes…if you confine the argument to income taxes you are probably correct; taxes in general and it’s probably a wash. Deficit spending is certainly a wash…only two administrations have doubled the debt, both republican.

Foreign policy…harder line…at what cost and exactly who benefits?

Israel…O.K.; I’ll give you that one…

…and I’ve never pulled a blue lever in my life.
[/quote]

Yes it’s a matter of perspective, but someone is only allowing himself to look at one side of the picture (right).

The kool-aid is strong in that one. A long time of slurping it up. It really won’t matter how well you point out the similarities if someone is bound and determined to completely ignore them. Maybe when the next Republican President continues the policies of President Obama he will start to realize the similarities.

330

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Again, there are major differences between the two parties. the fact that
…the list of differences are endless and proven:

-Appointment of judges, Dems appoint more liberal, republicans conservative.

-Bills that protect the environment tend to be signed by dems even if they are nonsensical such as the recent pipeline bill that Obama did not sign.

-Taxes are almost always raised during a democrats reign and lowered during a republicans. If you disagree point out the exception!

-Foreign policy wise republicans usually take a harder line.

-The recent back turning of Obama to Israel is unprecedented and would not, and never has taken place under a republican Presidency.

There are many, many differences between the two parties which are undeniable.
[/quote]

You continue to beat this drum…so much is a matter of perspective…

Judges…you mean judges more likely to support 4th amendment protections rather than sign any warrant presented to them?

Pipeline Bill…plenty of people work in areas of the economy that would be damaged by the pipeline bill…my industry estimates a 30% decline in business if the pipeline is built. This has little to do with the environment; just big business protecting their profits.

Taxes…if you confine the argument to income taxes you are probably correct; taxes in general and it’s probably a wash. Deficit spending is certainly a wash…only two administrations have doubled the debt, both republican.

Foreign policy…harder line…at what cost and exactly who benefits?

Israel…O.K.; I’ll give you that one…

…and I’ve never pulled a blue lever in my life.
[/quote]

Nevertheless there are major differences.

331

[quote]H factor wrote:

Yes it’s a matter of perspective, but someone is only allowing himself to look at one side of the picture (right).

The kool-aid is strong in that one. A long time of slurping it up. It really won’t matter how well you point out the similarities if someone is bound and determined to completely ignore them. Maybe when the next Republican President continues the policies of President Obama he will start to realize the similarities. [/quote]

Yes, someone is drinking the Kool-Aid of sloppy thinking and stereotyping.

As I agreed there are similarities but glaring differences as well. Just as I stated in a list that I posted which were unable to refute.

332

Interesting article about Martin O’Malley’s time as Mayor of Baltmore. Most people are expecting O’Malley to announcing his bid for the Presidency very soon.

333

I guess this is the world we live in…

334

After watching the long list of potential Presidential candidates unfold and underwhelm I can only ask…where is John Huntsman when you need him? If you remove Bernie Sanders from this mess you just have one gigantic ball of lies and bullshit (and Canadians). By the way before you jump on the Bernie Sanders thing, all I’m saying is that he at least says what he believes regardless of polls.

335

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
After watching the long list of potential Presidential candidates unfold and underwhelm I can only ask…where is John Huntsman when you need him? If you remove Bernie Sanders from this mess you just have one gigantic ball of lies and bullshit (and Canadians). By the way before you jump on the Bernie Sanders thing, all I’m saying is that he at least says what he believes regardless of polls.[/quote]

This is the single best group of republican Presidential hopefuls in a very long time. We have successful Senators, Governors, former Governors, Doctors, business leaders. And each and everyone of them would be a better pick than Hillary Clinton or your pal Bernie (I’m a socialist) Sanders.

Socialism can only look good to those at the top of the government food chain, or the young and naive.

336

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
If you remove Bernie Sanders from this mess you just have one gigantic ball of lies and bullshit (and Canadians). By the way before you jump on the Bernie Sanders thing, all I’m saying is that he at least says what he believes regardless of polls.[/quote]

lmao…

This kid thinks Sanders is any different than any of the other candidates when it comes to “balls of lies”…

I bet you are a hit in sociology department in college right?

337

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]
I’m going to have to use a sick day today unfortunately. Got bad migraine headaches this morning. Can I be marked as sick?

The ability to hold a position does not constitute as experience. Her accomplishments are:

  1. Her gender (supposed)
  2. Her husband [/quote]

Four years as the second highest ranking American diplomat, second only to the Diplomat in Chief. She traveled more than any Secretary of State to date, visiting an average of 28 states per year during her tenure. Nearly 1,000,000 miles. But she doesn’t have any foreign policy experience, especially vis-a-vis the rest of the contenders in 2016?[/quote]

Really? The fact that she has TRAVELED makes her successful? So is she a Statesman? No. Can she manage the department? No. See Kissinger and Baker about how they can influence foreign policy. Don’t give he that “she serves at the behest of the president” crap.

She has been an abysmal failure. But hell, she has got a lot of stamps on her passport!
[/quote]

Bismark didn’t say HRC was successful. He said she has experience. And extensive experience at that, and was implementing someone else’s strategy in FP. Those are all very true. She DOES blow all the other candidates experience out of the water. You’re sticking your head in the sand because you despise her. For that matter, I do too–but I’m going to recognize the time she spent doing the job she was assigned.

Bismark didn’t say her experience was a net positive for the administration, nor did he say she was successful. He said that HRC has far more experience than any other candidate in FP…and that is undeniably true.

338

ZEB,

You have some awful reading comprehension, at no point to I suggest that I would vote for Bernie Sanders, nor do I suggest that Hillary Clinton is a viable option, in fact the only person I mention that could possibly be construed as someone I would vote for is Huntsman (a moderate Republican), while at the same time lumping the GOP and Dems in the lying bullshitter category. I only praise Sanders for the fact that he willfully stands by his very unpopular stances because those are what HE believes in, I do not call him my pal or suggest that I would vote for him.

By the way, I’m sure that you know with the exception of maybe Jeb Bush the rest of the GOP is just wishful thinking, none of that crew can win a general election held in the US.

339

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
If you remove Bernie Sanders from this mess you just have one gigantic ball of lies and bullshit (and Canadians). By the way before you jump on the Bernie Sanders thing, all I’m saying is that he at least says what he believes regardless of polls.[/quote]

lmao…

This kid thinks Sanders is any different than any of the other candidates when it comes to “balls of lies”…

I bet you are a hit in sociology department in college right?[/quote]

Countingbeans,

Well I’m not a kid, nor am I in a Sociology department somewhere, I am a 47 year old retiree from the military (Army Infantry) and then briefly the federal government. You seem to think I have some affinity for Sanders as well, I merely applaud his willingness to not try to poll every decision he makes. I’m trying to not make any smart-ass comments (unlike you) because it detracts from a conversation, but it seems to be your first response, weird.

340

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
If you remove Bernie Sanders from this mess you just have one gigantic ball of lies and bullshit (and Canadians). By the way before you jump on the Bernie Sanders thing, all I’m saying is that he at least says what he believes regardless of polls.[/quote]

lmao…

This kid thinks Sanders is any different than any of the other candidates when it comes to “balls of lies”…

I bet you are a hit in sociology department in college right?[/quote]

Countingbeans,

Well I’m not a kid, nor am I in a Sociology department somewhere, I am a 47 year old retiree from the military (Army Infantry) and then briefly the federal government. You seem to think I have some affinity for Sanders as well, I merely applaud his willingness to not try to poll every decision he makes. I’m trying to not make any smart-ass comments (unlike you) because it detracts from a conversation, but it seems to be your first response, weird.[/quote]

Sigh… Sanders is Ron Paul left, except full of fucking shit. When home in VT he’s fine with guns because people in VT love guns. National Stage and he’s all “common sense solutions”.

He’s so willing to stand by his stances and convictions he’s running on the Democrat ticket, super independent of him. Speaking of which, did this “independent” vote against the democrats a single time while in office?

Yes I took a humorous and somewhat juvenile swipe in my comment, but no it isn’t weird. It’s because you obviously haven’t looked at Sanders very hard if you actually believe what you wrote. I haven’t even looked at him hard, and see this bullshit.

I think you underestimate the electorate and over estimate the whole “voting for Obama makes me cool and totally not racist” turnout in 2008 and 2012. Sanders and his “I’ll give you a bunch of shit other people have to pay for” isn’t going to get Obama turnout, and neither is Clinton. Anything can happen in a general. You could be right, but you could be very, very wrong.