Who should we elect?

[zeke]

the vulnerable Democrats need right now.

Vulnerable Democrats eh? Republicans are looking to Ted Cruz and you think the Dems are vulnerable? I guess that makes the Repubs crazy. And stupid.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So the first thing you do is try and make fun of the fact that Bush actually had an impact on what happened after he left office. It would appear you think the day after Bush left office nothing existed that was impacted by Bush's policies.

Let's see.

Who invaded Iraq?
Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?
Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Who invaded Iraq?

We did. Congress authorized the use of military force an we carried out the 1998 foreign policy directive of Bill Clinton which was also authorized by Congress.

We? Who is we?

The fact is, Bush was in charge of all of this, his cronies wanted to go to war. It wouldn't have happened without these people. had a Democrat been in power, it wouldn't have happened. Bus was C-in-C.

Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?

Liberals who turned Iraq into Little Vietnam for political purposes, causing us to prematurely withdraw and allow the unstable government to fall into the hands of radicals.

What? How did liberals make the power vacuum? Did liberals get rid of the Iraqi military and police? Did they?

Actually the answer is the Coalition Provisional Authority order 2. This disbanded the military and police of the Hussain regime. The guy who ran this was Lewis Paul Bremer II, an American diplomat, was basically head of state of Iraq for one year, and was appointed by a certain George W. Bush and was under Donald Rumsfeld. He also happens to be a Republican.

Which of these three people, Bremer, Bush and Rumsfeld was a LIBERAL exactly?

Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Bush. And so the argument was made that we should elect Obama to fix the problems. After two terms, nothing much has been done and liberals are still blaming everything on Bush.

So Bush messed up but you think that after 8 years we should forget that Bush messed up? Really? Things don't just change. I'm blaming Bush for what he did that led up to the economy collapsing. It wasn't just him. In fact I doubt he knew much of what was going on, but he was the guy in charge of the cronies, supposedly. I can also see that the consequences last years, sometimes even decades.

Others suggest Bush isn't guilty of anything that happened after the day he left office. Some even say Obama was guilty before he entered office. Then you know you're getting into partisan BS.

As for the economy, here's what has happened in Obama's time with unemployment. Not getting better huh? Actually it's getting better for about 3% of those who are able to work. That's nothing small.

Yep, it's been going DOWN for the last 3 years, here's Bush's. Spot the difference?

Millions of Americans are not even counted in these numbers because they have exhausted unemployment benefits and no long show up as part of the statistic. We lost millions of decent paying jobs and replaced them will low-wage or part time jobs.

Oh, I'm not saying the economy is amazing. It's better than it was, and better by quite a bit. It's hardly surprising. It'd have taken a lot of effort by Obama to mess it up so the economy wasn't getting better. He did his job, he got the economy going. Most other potential presidents would have done this too. He didn't mess it up. Job done.

But yes, the rich are loving this economic crisis, it allows them to pay a lot less. Things will change over time. But the issue here isn't what Obama is doing about it, it's about what will happen the next time an economic crisis happens. Will people have learned from this and change the way things happen or not?

I'm saying nothing will change, the system doesn't work for the people, it works for the rich and economic crises work for the rich, the very rich, more than anyone else. Why would they want to change this?

It's hardly surprising more people are using food stamps. Due to what has gone on before, and not just Bush, but Clinton, Bush snr and Reagan, oh and don't forget Congress, this economic disaster was always going to happen. Why? Because the politicians in general don't care about the people. They care about their political future, which means getting in lots of money to advertise yourself to death, which means courting big business and doing what they want.

It's also hardly surprising that food stamps take a while to come down. You need people to be in stable employment. However the economic crisis that was so bad for a lot of poor people, many losing their homes which often went to make rich people richer and poor people poorer, means they're struggling to get back on their feet. But you haven't made much in the way of a convincing argument. You haven't shown how food stamp statistics work in economic crises. Someone things lag, they take time to come down. Certainly food stamps aren't always an indicator of how the economy is going.

*SIGH* AGAIN.... We elected Obama to FIX the problems! You made the argument that we shouldn't elect a Republican because things would remain the same. Remember Hope and Change? Now suddenly, it is not Obama's fault, it made no difference who we elected because all our problems are the fault of politicians past. This is clearly the problem of the policy which turns around and points to the past in cynical blame. So how long do we keep looking backward and blaming our problems on the past instead of tackling the problems and making the future better?

You seem to put no correlation between what started to happen in 2007/2008 and what is happening now, as if they were in two separate eras and can't possibly affect one another.

You sound like there are quick fixes. To be honest people asked me what would change with Obama, people who were super excited he got in. I said not much would change. The reality is he had a great campaign that made the people look silly more than anything else.
He was in the heart of the worst economic crisis since the great depression and you want it fixed over night. Sorry, it would never have happened. There's no a single person on this planet who could have fixed this crisis and had the economy booming in 6 years. NOBODY. If you voted for quick fixes then you're an idiot.

Change there was. There was a noticeable change in foreign policy. No more "al-Qaeda" and "War on Terror" being blurted out. Obama didn't have the power to stop what Bush had put in place. That is clear. But he stopped it moving forwards as a Republican would have done.

We had an election in 2008... A historic election! We were promised the Democrat equivalent to "Morning in America" and yet we're still in the middle of the Nightmare of Obama! And ALL you have to say for yourselves is "Bush is Bad! ---It's all Bush's fault!"

It seems to me we need to decide if we want REAL change and improvement, or do we want to go through another 4 years of it being all Bush's fault? The looking back and blaming the past doesn't seem to be doing a thing for our future.

But it was Bush's fault. No one could have fixed this mess in 6 years.

Unemployment from 1948 when these statistics on this website start.

In Carter/Reagan's economic crisis of the 1980s, in May 1980 it shot up above 7% to 7.5 and didn't come down below 7% until January 1986 but then went up again until October that year. So you have an economic crisis with just over 6 years of 7%+unemployment.

This one started December 2008 above 7% and came down December 2013, that's 5 years. So they're basically 1 year ahead of that crisis and this one was much stronger.

You can't just make crises disappear. You put things in place and hope they work and reduce the problem. It doesn't look that much different to other crises only it was much stronger.

As for foreign policy, yes, Obama is reacting to events. He had his main area policy which was to try and stop the US being the country that vilified Islam, that stopped going around invading all the time. However what Bush set in motion with being anti-Islam and Islam being the new common enemy to replace the USSR, and also with the balls up in Iraq especially, Obama doesn't seem able or willing to pull back as much as he wanted to. Part of this is him playing politics. He didn't have to bomb Libya, it was a mistake, I think he bowed to pressure from McCain and the right, and he should have been man enough to say no.

However, be in no doubt that without Bush, Obama wouldn't be in this position. He wouldn't have to be dealing with ISIS and things like this.

AGAIN... The REASON we have ISIS is because we abandoned the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Instead of doing what should have been done and wiping these motherfuckers off the planet, we balked, we turned and ran away, we abandoned the resistance forces and adopted a new liberal policy which has FAILED! We now have a bigger problem on our hands and it's not going to get better.

No, ISIS isn't just because Obama abandoned the "War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine". It's there for a variety of reasons. The dude behind ISIS went to Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003/4. He was building up to this, had a long period of time to develop. Other groups were doing the same.
ISIS was allowed to happen in Syria because there was a war there which the US didn't want to get involved in, nor did anyone else, it led to another power vacuum. Iraq was already a disaster, and still fluctuating in how much rebels were committing violence. Bush decided the next guy would pull out. It had to happen at some point.

So basically ISIS would have happened at some point because the Bush Administration messed up Iraq.

There's a history of terrorism in the world. ETA in Spain, the IRA in the UK, the KLA in Kosovo, Chechen rebels in Chechnya, Islamic terrorism and many more groups and organisations. And there's a certain thread that weaves its way through every story. These people decided to take up arms against a government or foreign force that was trying (and probably succeeding) in oppressing the people until they had had enough.

Islamic terrorism is no different. Unless the US understands the impact that foreign intervention has on the people in the region, within different groups, like religion, ethic groups and so on, then they will continue to make massive balls ups.

Is there a difference here between the US intervention in Afghanistan against the Soviets in the 1980s, supporting the Mujaheddin, the supporting of Saddam, the supporting of the rebels in Syria who were taken over by ISIS? No. It shows time and time and time and time and time and time again that US foreign policy is about SHORT TERM gains.
ISIS exists because of Bush's short term gains.

I'm not saying a different leader couldn't have had a different outcome. Perhaps a Republican president wouldn't have seen ISIS appear now. Perhaps it would have been a different group, perhaps it would have happened at a different time in different circumstance.
However the only way to have stopped this would have been to invade Syria. You invade Syria and then have the same problems as happened in, say, Egypt where there elected a political group the US didn't like. It would also have anger more Muslims, more Muslims taking up arms, looking for a land fight against US forces. They would have targeted US troops on the ground there. It might not have been ISIS, but Syria would have been a bloody fight costing US troops 500 lives a year or more.

Blaming ISIS on Obama is ignoring the fact that some bloody fight would be going on. You can't go into such a place, take out a leader, mess up reconstruction so badly and expect everything to be rosy. You mess up, it has consequences.

To be honest I don't really care which name you throw up. Either he's a man who will do the bidding for big money, or he won't be president. Makes not that much difference.
The difference is this. If a Republican gets in we have more of a chance of seeing US soldiers dying in the Middle East.

To be honest, you've had your turn at bat and you've failed. US soldiers are going to die in the Middle East, and MORE are going to die now than there would have been 6-8 years ago. If we continue to ignore the inevitable, that number is going to increase even more when we eventually have to confront this threat.

Of all the potential candidates I see on the horizon, both Republican and Democrat, the ONLY man who has the balls to do what has to be done in spite of polls and public opinion is Ted Cruz. Like him or not, the man stands for his principles and doesn't back down.

Perhaps more will die now than before. Republicans want to send troops in. ISIS want the US to send troops in. Democrats don't want to send troops in. Who are you going to blame?

Blame Obama because Bush went in and got nearly 5,000 US soldiers killed, then people got fed up and voted for a guy who didn't get US troops killed in large numbers, and then people vote in Republicans again who sent in more troops and get more troops killed? Or blame the people who are putting the troops on the ground? Making the absolute cock ups that led to many more troops dying than needed to.
They should have kept the Hussein army and police, paid them a decent wage, and they wouldn't have gone off to fight the US forces. Instead they spent more money combating them than they needed to.

You talk about having the balls, as if balls is sending in poor people to get killed and and not having balls is not sending in troops to be killed.
I don't get it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh my the far left posts known bunk then wants others to prove them wrong!

See you can not debate a far left programmed drone as they can never admit when they are wrong and they will always post debunked info and expect others to prove them wrong!

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

The far left is a waste of time, so just point out their propaganda and move on.. Much easier!

Can not debate with a programmed far left drone, not possible..

it's a debate. If you want to come making idiotic statements, fine, just don't include me in your childish games.

If you want to debate, then we can debate, but do it like an adult should.

It's not about proving negatives. It's about having an argument that is well thought out and backing your argument up. It's not hard.

 

[Kosh]

Oh my the far left posts known bunk then wants others to prove them wrong!

See you can not debate a far left programmed drone as they can never admit when they are wrong and they will always post debunked info and expect others to prove them wrong!

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

The far left is a waste of time, so just point out their propaganda and move on.. Much easier!

Can not debate with a programmed far left drone, not possible..

it's a debate. If you want to come making idiotic statements, fine, just don't include me in your childish games.

If you want to debate, then we can debate, but do it like an adult should.

It's not about proving negatives. It's about having an argument that is well thought out and backing your argument up. It's not hard.

Once again posting known debunked far left propaganda is not a debate..

It is pushing an agenda.. It is agenda based posting centered around your far left programmed propaganda..

So if you can not post without using said debunked propaganda, expect to be called out on it..

It is something you will have to deal with every time you post that far left propaganda..

And yes to the far left it is about proving a negative, which is not a debate.

Also since the far left can never admit to being wrong and would much rather watch the world burn than doing so, it also shows that the far left is not here for a "debate".

So once again you are wrong on all your points, going to own up to being wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh my the far left posts known bunk then wants others to prove them wrong!

See you can not debate a far left programmed drone as they can never admit when they are wrong and they will always post debunked info and expect others to prove them wrong!

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

The far left is a waste of time, so just point out their propaganda and move on.. Much easier!

Can not debate with a programmed far left drone, not possible..

it's a debate. If you want to come making idiotic statements, fine, just don't include me in your childish games.

If you want to debate, then we can debate, but do it like an adult should.

It's not about proving negatives. It's about having an argument that is well thought out and backing your argument up. It's not hard.

Once again posting known debunked far left propaganda is not a debate..

It is pushing an agenda.. It is agenda based posting centered around your far left programmed propaganda..

So if you can not post without using said debunked propaganda, expect to be called out on it..

It is something you will have to deal with every time you post that far left propaganda..

And yes to the far left it is about proving a negative, which is not a debate.

Also since the far left can never admit to being wrong and would much rather watch the world burn than doing so, it also shows that the far left is not here for a "debate".

So once again you are wrong on all your points, going to own up to being wrong?

Blah blah blah.

You're not even talking about what is being discussed. You're going off on a rant about something else. Come back when you have something to talk about that isn't complete bull.

 

[Kosh]

Oh my the far left posts known bunk then wants others to prove them wrong!

See you can not debate a far left programmed drone as they can never admit when they are wrong and they will always post debunked info and expect others to prove them wrong!

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

The far left is a waste of time, so just point out their propaganda and move on.. Much easier!

Can not debate with a programmed far left drone, not possible..

it's a debate. If you want to come making idiotic statements, fine, just don't include me in your childish games.

If you want to debate, then we can debate, but do it like an adult should.

It's not about proving negatives. It's about having an argument that is well thought out and backing your argument up. It's not hard.

Once again posting known debunked far left propaganda is not a debate..

It is pushing an agenda.. It is agenda based posting centered around your far left programmed propaganda..

So if you can not post without using said debunked propaganda, expect to be called out on it..

It is something you will have to deal with every time you post that far left propaganda..

And yes to the far left it is about proving a negative, which is not a debate.

Also since the far left can never admit to being wrong and would much rather watch the world burn than doing so, it also shows that the far left is not here for a "debate".

So once again you are wrong on all your points, going to own up to being wrong?

Blah blah blah.

You're not even talking about what is being discussed. You're going off on a rant about something else. Come back when you have something to talk about that isn't complete bull.

Oh my another far left irony post!

Yet they do not know what a "debate" is, nor do they understand that they are posting debunked information as "fact".

The far left truly a bunch of programmed drones..

 

[Avatar4321]

elect me of course

 

[zeke]

Full Definition of DEBATE
: a contention by words or arguments: as

a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides




Koshy, see the definition of "debate" above. That part about it being a "regulated discussion". Seeing as how there is no "regulated discussion" going on. at least pertaining to a particular topic, means that the exchanges we engage in do not fit the definition of a true debate.

What we do is argue/insult based on opinion with some fact thrown in. Big difference.

 

[zeke]

elect me of course

Works for me. Will you pay me for my vote?

 

[Kosh]

Full Definition of DEBATE
: a contention by words or arguments: as

a : the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure

b : a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides




Koshy, see the definition of "debate" above. That part about it being a "regulated discussion". Seeing as how there is no "regulated discussion" going on. at least pertaining to a particular topic, means that the exchanges we engage in do not fit the definition of a true debate.

What we do is argue/insult based on opinion with some fact thrown in. Big difference.

I realize that the far left programming by nature makes you irony impaired..

But then again you just proved my point without even realizing it..

Typical far left poster to come in and contradict another far left poster and highlight only the keywords they noticed..

 

[candycorn]

Vote straight party tickets federally. That is about all the average voter can do. If you're going to elect a President of Party A, give her/him a Congress of Party A so they can implement the programs you voted for.

I feel confident that there are no "evil" people seeking the Presidency. This is why I get such a chuckle from the right wing loons who swear as such.

All love the nation and want to see it do well.

There are differences in philosophies which drives my vote

 

[Skull Pilot]

Open a phone book if you can still find one and randomly pick anyone and we' have a 50 / 50 shot 0f getting a better president than we have now

 

[Two Thumbs]

Who do we vote for?
pfft, what a painful question.

the leftist are out, we don't need any more of that non-sense.

but who on the right? A pol that has worked his way up? No, we've seen that horror show. A biz person? No, the pols won't work with a non-insider, so it must be a career pol, but we don't want one of those.

so we vote for no one and hope the WH is empty for 4 years


yea, that's it

 

[Skull Pilot]

We could set up a CGI person with a voice over actor and still have a better president than we've had in 15 years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Open a phone book if you can still find one and randomly pick anyone and we' have a 50 / 50 shot 0f getting a better president than we have now

Doesn't that say more about the voters than anything else.

Hey people, choose your CEO for the next four years. You can choose between this guy who is a puppet of the rich people, that person who is a puppet of the rich people or these other candidates you didn't bother to inform yourself about because you're lazy, have been taken in by the rich people and you know nothing about why you're voting for the big two parties.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Open a phone book if you can still find one and randomly pick anyone and we' have a 50 / 50 shot 0f getting a better president than we have now

Doesn't that say more about the voters than anything else.

Hey people, choose your CEO for the next four years. You can choose between this guy who is a puppet of the rich people, that person who is a puppet of the rich people or these other candidates you didn't bother to inform yourself about because you're lazy, have been taken in by the rich people and you know nothing about why you're voting for the big two parties.

Oh there's plenty of criticism to put on the pols themselves.

 

[Kosh]

Vote straight party tickets federally. That is about all the average voter can do. If you're going to elect a President of Party A, give her/him a Congress of Party A so they can implement the programs you voted for.

I feel confident that there are no "evil" people seeking the Presidency. This is why I get such a chuckle from the right wing loons who swear as such.

All love the nation and want to see it do well.

There are differences in philosophies which drives my vote

To the far left there are only two choices, vote far left or do not vote at all..

 

[Boss]

@frigidweirdo.. This thread is not a debate on who's fault Obama's failure is, how bad Bush was, foreign policy, revisionist history or anything else. It's not even a debate about a debate over what debate is.

@Mac1958.. I don't care if the left or moderate right think Cruz is "a gift" and not concerned with appealing to the indies. Don't care how you label Cruz. If the GOP doesn't nominate a conservative, they are finished as a viable political party.

 

[Avatar4321]

elect me of course

Works for me. Will you pay me for my vote?

what do I look like? A Democrat?

 

[Syriusly]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

IF you thought that Barack Obama was too inexperienced to be elected President, then you shouldn't support Cruz.

But if your only criteria is an ideology that you support- go for it. Thats what got Obama elected.

As a Democrat looking back, I am now more in favor of someone who has proven executive experience as a governor- you have good strong candidates with governor experience- Jeb and Chris Christie- hell even Walker who I don't like at all.

And by the way- Cruz is the Republican's Warren.