U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-14-2015, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,182 posts, read 15,706,154 times
Reputation: 9830

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
Oh really?

On Iraq question, Jeb Bush stumbles and the GOP hopefuls pounce - The Washington Post

He's a splishing and a splashing, flipping and a flopping.........

Now you place traction on whether or not those boobs running for president would have engaged had they known then what they know now ....if they had a claim to more than two functioning brain cells; they had all the information they needed to have known it then !
Jeb may not be ideal but does anyone honestly think Cruz or Carson can win? Paul or Rubio may shock us with a win but they are dark horses. Bush is the Republicans' best bet as sad as that sounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-14-2015, 10:16 AM
 
595 posts, read 300,185 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Jeb may not be ideal but does anyone honestly think Cruz or Carson can win? Paul or Rubio may shock us with a win but they are dark horses. Bush is the Republicans' best bet as sad as that sounds.
Not sure if Bush is the GOP's best bet. Bush is very similar to Clinton, both are pro-intervention (war).

If the GOP wants to win they should run a non-interventionist. That alone will be a huge advantage against the eventual Democrat, assuming the Democrat nominee is a pro-intervention candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:02 PM
 
36,515 posts, read 16,266,028 times
Reputation: 9793
Here's how I rate the top three contenders on the GOP side and it is mostly for their illegal immigration stances.

Bush - F
Rubio - D
Cruz - C
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:16 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,182 posts, read 15,706,154 times
Reputation: 9830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803 View Post
Not sure if Bush is the GOP's best bet. Bush is very similar to Clinton, both are pro-intervention (war).

If the GOP wants to win they should run a non-interventionist. That alone will be a huge advantage against the eventual Democrat, assuming the Democrat nominee is a pro-intervention candidate.
They don't have any though. Rand Paul went from being non-interventionalist to being in full on hawk for the nomination.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:23 PM
 
595 posts, read 300,185 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
They don't have any though. Rand Paul went from being non-interventionalist to being in full on hawk for the nomination.
Unfortunately they do not, maybe they will, but probably not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:29 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
9,876 posts, read 6,582,630 times
Reputation: 6259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803 View Post
Not sure if Bush is the GOP's best bet. Bush is very similar to Clinton, both are pro-intervention (war).

If the GOP wants to win they should run a non-interventionist. That alone will be a huge advantage against the eventual Democrat, assuming the Democrat nominee is a pro-intervention candidate.
Well, the difference is that HRC said that if she knew what she knew now about the Iraq war, she would have voted otherwise. Unfortunately for Jeb, he doubled down on sticking to kinfolk and going to war with Iraq - to the point that even Laura Ingraham is ridiculing him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:32 PM
 
595 posts, read 300,185 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Well, the difference is that HRC said that if she knew what she knew now about the Iraq war, she would have voted otherwise. Unfortunately for Jeb, he doubled down on sticking to kinfolk and going to war with Iraq - to the point that even Laura Ingraham is ridiculing him.
Perhaps she would have decided not to invade Iraq in 2003. The point was that Clinton, Bush, and several other candidates are pro-intervention overseas in conflicts that are none of the business of the U.S., and their support and intervention in these conflicts and affairs results in dead Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:37 PM
 
6,467 posts, read 1,302,770 times
Reputation: 16438
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Jeb Bush on May 13 said, "I'm running for president in 2016, and the focus is going to be about how we, if I run, how do you create high sustained economic growth," .... say what?
LOL. Does anyone think that the tendency to "mis-speak" might be genetic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
9,876 posts, read 6,582,630 times
Reputation: 6259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio1803 View Post
Perhaps she would have decided not to invade Iraq in 2003. The point was that Clinton, Bush, and several other candidates are pro-intervention overseas in conflicts that are none of the business of the U.S., and their support and intervention in these conflicts and affairs results in dead Americans.
Pro-intervention is a matter of degree.

Yes, HRC tends to be a bit more hawkish, than, say, Obama, but not excessively so.

OTOH, you have a real influential warmonger faction in the GOP - like McCain and Graham, whose knee-jerk reaction is to bomb a country one doesn't like. Tom Cotton, who just joined the Senate, is McCain and Graham on steroids with his militant saber-rattling.

And it looks like Jeb (and maybe a few other candidates) have the same PNAC group advising them on foreign policy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-14-2015, 12:49 PM
 
595 posts, read 300,185 times
Reputation: 205
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverkris View Post
Pro-intervention is a matter of degree.

Yes, HRC tends to be a bit more hawkish, than, say, Obama, but not excessively so.

OTOH, you have a real influential warmonger faction in the GOP - like McCain and Graham, whose knee-jerk reaction is to bomb a country one doesn't like. Tom Cotton, who just joined the Senate, is McCain and Graham on steroids with his militant saber-rattling.

And it looks like Jeb (and maybe a few other candidates) have the same PNAC group advising them on foreign policy.
Agree, Graham and McCain are fools, along with Cotton (Who is delusional enough to believe the U.S. can defeat Iran with air power alone).

HRC, and Obama are still hawkish, maybe not as much as McCain or Graham, but still Obama and HRC are way too eager to plunge the U.S. into useless interventions.

Jeb Bush is a fool, and is pro-intervention, unfortunately much like too many politicians in Washington.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top