Still Pissed About Jeb

[Foxfyre]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

 

[Foxfyre]

They are abandoning lifelong party loyalties to make it clear

Trump is not suited to be President

Something I don't think either would have done had Jeb not been part of the equation.

Jen or no Jeb

All former Presidents agree Trump is not suited to be President

And yet he's doing a better job than many of them. Unemployment lowest since 2000, consumer confidence the highest since 2000, great work on the borders and attacking immigration, government dependency going down, stock market breaking records. And to think, the guy hasn't been in office a full year yet.

Trump has done nothing to help the economy

Let's hope he doesn't screw it up

He's done a lot to help the economy. He has killed all those ridiculous economically harmfull regulations that Obama imposed on us. The so-called "clean power plan" alone was a major drag on the economy.

Not all of them but he has set a policy in motion to keep whittling them down and not order new ones. What he has mostly done is give a clear shout out to the private economy that he won't be throwing up harmful regulations and they need not fear new taxes or other roadblocks that make it financially unfeasible or impossible to start new businesses or expand existing ones. Getting rid of the stupid 50 employee mandate for Obamacare, and the little guys can again compete with the big guys. Many who dropped out of the work force for lack of good full time jobs are now coming back. People with jobs are less fearful they will lose them. And therefore economic and consumer confidence is hugely improved.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

If anyone is tacky it is Trump. He is just re-stocking the swamp. When big business tells him to jump he just asks how high. He is putting lobbyists in to oversee the areas they lobby in.

I had a lot of differences when they were President but they have 1 thing Trump will never have. Class. A majority of voters agree with the Bush family.

Nicely recited Democratic talking points but I don't believe a word of it. I will concede that he will never be the poll tested, scripted, polished politician that so many think he has to be in order to be acceptable. (Though the left wing would trash him no matter what his style.)

But it was because he is not that poll tested, scripted, polished politician who plays by the permanent political class rules that got him elected by 60+ million people who didn't want a poll tested, scripted, polished politician as a leader.

Not true. Voters were repulsed by both candidates. Both were seen as dishonest but enough reluctantly voted for Trump. If you look at the polls for both Clinton and Trump you would see something interesting. Anyone who was seen as honest on the Republican side did better against Clinton than they did against Biden or Sanders who were seem as more honest. Democrats who were seen as more honest did better against Trump than Clinton. This was a vote for who was the less awful.

Yet more people voted in this election than last.

Bang!

That was your point blowing up!

No it was not. In many states both Clinton and Trump got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. Both Trump and Clinton got fewer votes in Virginia than Obama did in 2012 and Trump got fewer votes than Romney did. Exit polls showed that 25% of Trump's support came from people voting against Clinton not for Trump.

And a whole bunch of votes Clinton got was voting against Trump and not for Clinton.

And in the end it is Donald Trump that the vast majority of the country wanted. The ONLY reason Hillary won the popular vote, even in California, was the heavy concentrations of votes in sanctuary cities and/or with huge welfare populations. Remove those dependent on government and who strongly support illegal immigration from the equation and Trump wins the popular vote overwhelmingly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Something I don't think either would have done had Jeb not been part of the equation.

Jen or no Jeb

All former Presidents agree Trump is not suited to be President

And yet he's doing a better job than many of them. Unemployment lowest since 2000, consumer confidence the highest since 2000, great work on the borders and attacking immigration, government dependency going down, stock market breaking records. And to think, the guy hasn't been in office a full year yet.

Trump has done nothing to help the economy

Let's hope he doesn't screw it up

Right, we just magically hit over 3% GDP growth by luck; something DumBama couldn't pull off in 8 years.

Trump has been in office for 10 months now, so you can't keep giving DumBama credit for his successes. He gave confidence to businesses and citizens alike. Trump (being a businessman) is pro private sector following the most anti-business President of our lifetime. Of course businesses are excited about the future.

So what is Trump's problem? Some don't like him personally. He's the exact opposite of DumBama. People loved him personally, but his policies sucked. That's why we gave leadership of Congress to the Republicans; to stop DumBama.

The Great Obama gave us over 3% GDP on many quarters. He also gave us consistently positive growth for eight straight years

He gave us the worst recovery from recession since the Great Depression. And THAT my friend, is precisely why the country was ready for a Donald Trump with the vision and guts to shake us out of that and get things moving again. And he has not disappointed.

Report: Worst economic recovery since 1930s, salaries fall $17,000 short

 

[Foxfyre]

I am about as pure a classical liberal as it gets There very much is such a thing. Just too few people educated in the wisdom of it.

Do you believe women should vote?

Sure, if they are citizens, of legal age, of sound mind, and informed. However, that has nothing to do with classical liberalism. The Founders didn't give anybody the ability to vote. They left who voted within the various states strictly up to the various states. That's what most identifies classical liberalism, i.e. the ability to decide what sort of society you want and allow the people to govern themselves.

Our classical liberal founders only provided the vote to landowners. Women, blacks, Indians did not have full rights as citizens.

Are you cherry picking what their views were?

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

Real liberals who believed in people governing themselves and living as they choose to live short of violating the unalienable rights of others. Not the illiberal and intolerant modern day 'liberal' who would have a central government that forces everybody to be and live as THEY think it should be.

 

[Correll]

H. W. really shows his colors here. From him through Obama was an unfortunate series of globalist presidents. Let's not do that again.

Trump Is a ‘Blowhard,’ ‘I Don’t Like Him’ and I Voted for Hillary, George Bush Says in New Book

He's making me feel better about not voting for him the second time.

Stupid old man.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sure, if they are citizens, of legal age, of sound mind, and informed. However, that has nothing to do with classical liberalism. The Founders didn't give anybody the ability to vote. They left who voted within the various states strictly up to the various states. That's what most identifies classical liberalism, i.e. the ability to decide what sort of society you want and allow the people to govern themselves.

Our classical liberal founders only provided the vote to landowners. Women, blacks, Indians did not have full rights as citizens.

Are you cherry picking what their views were?

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

The idea that turds like you have anything in common with the Founding Fathers is absurd.

Founding Fathers were the greatest liberals of their day

Yes they were. True liberals/libertarians who believed the role of the federal government was to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare which meant EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just the demographics who would vote for them, and enact sufficient laws and regulation to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

Otherwise they had a 100% hands off policy so that the various states and communities could organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they saw fit. The knew humankind was imperfect and would make mistakes and get it wrong many times. But they also trusted the basic instincts of the people to work at it until they got it right and only by allowing people to take responsibility for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choices could they improve and become better.

The trusted the basic instincts and ability of people to govern themselves far better than any central government would do that.

That is 100% opposite of the so-called 'liberals' in modern day America.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Our classical liberal founders only provided the vote to landowners. Women, blacks, Indians did not have full rights as citizens.

Are you cherry picking what their views were?

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

The idea that turds like you have anything in common with the Founding Fathers is absurd.

Founding Fathers were the greatest liberals of their day

Yes they were. True liberals/libertarians who believed the role of the federal government was to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare which meant EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just the demographics who would vote for them, and enact sufficient laws and regulation to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

Otherwise they had a 100% hands off policy so that the various states and communities could organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they saw fit. The knew humankind was imperfect and would make mistakes and get it wrong many times. But they also trusted the basic instincts of the people to work at it until they got it right and only by allowing people to take responsibility for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choices could they improve and become better.

The trusted the basic instincts and ability of people to govern themselves far better than any central government would do that.

That is 100% opposite of the so-called 'liberals' in modern day America.

The federal government is a government of the people.

Leave things to the states and you get stuff like slavery.

 

[Foxfyre]

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

The idea that turds like you have anything in common with the Founding Fathers is absurd.

Founding Fathers were the greatest liberals of their day

Yes they were. True liberals/libertarians who believed the role of the federal government was to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare which meant EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just the demographics who would vote for them, and enact sufficient laws and regulation to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

Otherwise they had a 100% hands off policy so that the various states and communities could organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they saw fit. The knew humankind was imperfect and would make mistakes and get it wrong many times. But they also trusted the basic instincts of the people to work at it until they got it right and only by allowing people to take responsibility for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choices could they improve and become better.

The trusted the basic instincts and ability of people to govern themselves far better than any central government would do that.

That is 100% opposite of the so-called 'liberals' in modern day America.

The federal government is a government of the people.

Leave things to the states and you get stuff like slavery.

Do you? Many of the original states elected not to be slave states and others were abolishing slavery soon after the Constitution was ratified. The federal government mandated that the territories that it governed would remain slave free and also new states formed out of them. And had the federal government stayed out of the issue, it is certain that the remaining slave states would have followed suit and abolished slavery voluntarily and without bloodshed. Just as did all the rest of the free world during the late 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

The idea that turds like you have anything in common with the Founding Fathers is absurd.

Founding Fathers were the greatest liberals of their day

Yes they were. True liberals/libertarians who believed the role of the federal government was to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare which meant EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just the demographics who would vote for them, and enact sufficient laws and regulation to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

Otherwise they had a 100% hands off policy so that the various states and communities could organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they saw fit. The knew humankind was imperfect and would make mistakes and get it wrong many times. But they also trusted the basic instincts of the people to work at it until they got it right and only by allowing people to take responsibility for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choices could they improve and become better.

The trusted the basic instincts and ability of people to govern themselves far better than any central government would do that.

That is 100% opposite of the so-called 'liberals' in modern day America.

The federal government is a government of the people.

Leave things to the states and you get stuff like slavery.

Well-llll, another "constitutional scholar" in the Obama mode, I see. So amusing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

 

[BluesLegend]

The Bush family may never forgive the country for not voting for Jeb and breaking the dynasty.

What IDIOT thought the country wanted a 3rd Bush as president? Possibly the dumbest thing I ever heard of.

 

[BluesLegend]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

Trump during one of the debates, "Jeb pretty soon you will be way out on the end of the stage"

 

[bripat9643]

Man, after seeing a pictures of the old guy on TV I’m sure inclined to believe that crusty old fuck can’t say much more then , blah,blah,thppppppppth.

I've been told that his mind is almost totally gone. That's why he groped those nurses. He just does whatever pops into his head. You will notice that although you have seen him on TV you never hear him say anything. That's because whenever he talks he babbles like a 6 month old baby.

Yeah. Man I hope I just die fast. I would hate to exist in that condition.

My mother died from Alheimer's, and it was not a pleasant thing to watch.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

Every right to punch back during the campaign, yes. Everybody did. But to try to undercut and destroy him now is not cool and it does make them look like whiny losers and really petty.

 

[bripat9643]

They followed the thinking of the time. Your habit of applying 21st Century mores to the 18th Century is comical at best.

No shit Sherlock

That is why there is no such thing as classical liberals
They were just the liberals of their day

The idea that turds like you have anything in common with the Founding Fathers is absurd.

Founding Fathers were the greatest liberals of their day

Yes they were. True liberals/libertarians who believed the role of the federal government was to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare which meant EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just the demographics who would vote for them, and enact sufficient laws and regulation to prevent the various states from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

Otherwise they had a 100% hands off policy so that the various states and communities could organize themselves into whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and live as they saw fit. The knew humankind was imperfect and would make mistakes and get it wrong many times. But they also trusted the basic instincts of the people to work at it until they got it right and only by allowing people to take responsibility for themselves and suffer the consequences of their choices could they improve and become better.

The trusted the basic instincts and ability of people to govern themselves far better than any central government would do that.

That is 100% opposite of the so-called 'liberals' in modern day America.

The federal government is a government of the people.

Leave things to the states and you get stuff like slavery.

It's government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats and for the bureaucrats.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

Trump during one of the debates, "Jeb pretty soon you will be way out on the end of the stage"

Yeah, I had to grin at that one too. Both funny and prophetic as Jeb was unable to gain any traction anywhere. Had he stayed in, Rubio would have beaten him in Florida and Rubio lost to Trump in Florida, his own state, with a miserable 27% of the vote.

 

[Crixus]

Man, after seeing a pictures of the old guy on TV I’m sure inclined to believe that crusty old fuck can’t say much more then , blah,blah,thppppppppth.

I've been told that his mind is almost totally gone. That's why he groped those nurses. He just does whatever pops into his head. You will notice that although you have seen him on TV you never hear him say anything. That's because whenever he talks he babbles like a 6 month old baby.

Yeah. Man I hope I just die fast. I would hate to exist in that condition.

My mother died from Alheimer's, and it was not a pleasant thing to watch.

Can’t imagine it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I think most 'politicians' are upset trump won.

Breaks up the monopoly they had on the office

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

Trump during one of the debates, "Jeb pretty soon you will be way out on the end of the stage"

Trump is quick and entertaining. I liked when he harped on Jeb because he was so timid. He said Jeb was no energy. Later in the debate when they asked the candidates what mascot they would like to have to represent their campaign and why, Jeb picked the energizer rabbit and said it's because the rabbit had high energy.

 

[bripat9643]

Certainly the permanent political class, of which Presidents Bush 41 and 43, both of whom I like personally a great deal, are a part of, are going to try to undermine and/or destroy somebody who dares to shake up a status quo that has so greatly benefited THEM. The permanent political class has long been interested only in promoting their personal power, prestige, influence, wealth. The only difference between the parties is the constituencies they represent and they throw those constituencies just enough bones to keep us voting them into their very lucrative positions.

And add in the fact that Candidate Trump said something uncomplimentary about their family member, and it becomes even more personal.

Tacky of them to attack a sitting President.

But typical in a book written exactly for the purpose of doing that.

I would disagree with that. I'm no Bush family fan, but Trump did attack GW and Jeb on many occasions uncalled for. I believe that they have the right to strike back when the opportunity is given. I feel the same way about Trump. Most of the Trump controversies were about him defending himself and striking back at those who attacked him first.

I guess I'm just a big self-defense kind of guy. So I approve of the Bush's dislike for Donald, but I disagree with them voting for anybody outside our party. If you have a quarrel within your ranks, you don't join the enemy to get even.

Trump is Trump. He didn't say anything really vicious or even out of line re Jeb and, on Jake Tapper's show on CNN he sort of apologized for hitting Jeb so hard:

Republican candidate Donald Trump says he "felt bad" after being "too rough" on Jeb Bush in his campaign announcement this week.

"I think he's a nice person. I actually felt bad because I hit him very hard one day like two days ago, three days ago, and I said, why am I hitting him so hard?" Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper in an interview set to air Sunday during "State of the Union."

Trump grilled many of his Republican competitors this week in his announcement speech, dropping the politeness and subtler digs most other politicians stick to and he delivered his sharpest hits on Bush.

"I don't see how he can get the nomination," Trump said in his kickoff. "He's weak on immigration and he supports Common Core. How the hell can you vote for this guy?". . ."
Donald Trump 'felt bad' for bashing Jeb Bush - CNNPolitics​

I thought Bush 43 to be extremely weak on immigration and I also strongly opposed him on Common core. I thought him terrible on immigration, education, energy, entitlements, environment, he botched the handling of Katrina, I didn't want us to invade Iraq and I sure as hell didn't want to get into nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq, and he did nothing to keep Congress from spending like drunken sailors. Yet I voted for him twice because the Democrats keep putting up platforms and candidates who are wholly unacceptable to me. At least President Bush had some good results with the economy and nobody would have handled 9/11 any better than he did.

Jeb is an endearing and intelligent guy who I always admired as the cream of the crop of the Bush clan and in a way still do. But. . .he is indeed much of the same caliber and point of view on several issues. He did some good work as governor of Florida and I agree with him on several issues but, like Trump, I saw him as very weak on immigration and I hated Common Core. Nevertheless, he was on my short list of GOP candidates I thought I could support.

He however got 8% or less of the votes in the primaries he ran in and he quickly saw the handwriting on the wall and dropped out early. He was not an appealing candidate in a year in which 60+ million of us were fed up with the feckless permanent political class and wanted somebody who would fight for us instead of for the government.

Well apologies are only so good once the damage is done; not that I think Jeb stood a chance, but Trump laid into him, so Jeb (and George) have every right to punch back. Actually, GW stayed quiet for quite a while which surprised me.

But it is politics and Jeb ran against Trump, George did not. GW was quietly minding his own business. I think the punch below the belt was attaching the Iraq war stigma on Jeb because his brother was the leader and promoter of it. It forced Jeb into the position of defending his brothers actions.

I can't remember exactly, but I seem to recall something Trump said about the old man as well. In any event, my point is that the Bush's didn't draw first blood.

Trump during one of the debates, "Jeb pretty soon you will be way out on the end of the stage"

Yeah, I had to grin at that one too. Both funny and prophetic as Jeb was unable to gain any traction anywhere. Had he stayed in, Rubio would have beaten him in Florida and Rubio lost to Trump in Florida, his own state, with a miserable 27% of the vote.

You have to be the world's biggest idiot to tell your voter base that you don't intend to do anything they want once you get elected.