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.
In comparison with what was happening in the last year of Bush, yes.
Wrong. We are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we have destabilized a couple of more countries. Obama's foreign policy has been as bad if not worse than Bush's. How can you not see it?
What was happening at the end of Bush's term was that the surge had worked in Iraq.
What was happening at the end of Bush's term was that the surge had worked in Iraq.
How long were we going to stay there though? The Iraq policy was a failure from the beginning because Bush didn't take into account what would happen in the country after Saddam was thrown out of power. The U.S. would have had to permanently occupy it to keep it from destabilization. Is that something you would have supported?
How long were we going to stay there though? The Iraq policy was a failure from the beginning because Bush didn't take into account what would happen in the country after Saddam was thrown out of power. The U.S. would have had to permanently occupy it to keep it from destabilization. Is that something you would have supported?
If we had kept some forces there it would be stable today. If we had stayed out of arming rebels in Syria, it would be stable today. If we had kept out of Libya it would be stable today.
I was against the Iraq War, but once we invaded and destroyed their government, we had a moral duty to see it stayed stable. We are still in Japan and Germany.
The problem I have with Obama is that he didn't even try to get a new status of forces agreement in Iraq. He seems to have learned the lesson finally, which is why we are staying in Afghanistan. But if we had stayed in Iraq and let Afghanistan go, it would not have been as bad as the other way around.
Obama got a bad deal coming in after Bush, but he chose the job and screwed it up as far as I'm concerned.
This should have been a fairly straight forward election for the GOP.
I always characterized this election way back a year or two ago that Americans, quite simply did not want to elect another politician named CLINTON or BUSH. I've had strong suspicions that Americans were looking to purposefully avoid electing those two dynasties if they could.
You meant Republicans, not Americans.
Quote:
So logically I assumed that if the Republicans could put any electable candidate not called BUSH, they would have an excellent chance in this election as Americans were looking to vote away from one of those dynasty families that have been in power for so fricking long.
So it isn't surprising that almost every Republican (apart from Cruz who doesn't fit my definition of electable) polled positively against Clinton, simply because they weren't called CLINTON. "Anybody but Hillary" is the mindset of many Americans, please give me something else.
polled positively vs negatively seems to mean nothing more than beating her by 1 to 4% vs losing to her by 1 to 8%
There are only 2 candidates that consistently polled above Clinton. That was Rubio and Kasich.
Quote:
Republicans have a terrible judgment of electability in the past few years.
To me, you can also spin this around and say that if the Democrats were running just about anybody else instead of Hillary, they might have this pretty much wrapped up. It seems as if both sides decided to see just how low they could go in selecting a candidate and still win; like some sort of a crazy dare.
So what have we wound up with? A race to the bottom reality show to amuse us. Unfortunately we are going to have to live with one of them for four years as the booby prize.
Exactly. The litmus test for this statement is the Bernie Sanders campaign. A 74 year-old Jewish socialist -- the literal Triple Crown for unelectable since this country was formed -- nearly ran Hillary down, and won far more states than anyone ever imagined he would. If it weren't for the shenanigans pulled by DWS and the DNC, Sanders may have won.
Imagine that -- a 74 year-old nobody who trailed in the polls by 50 points a year ago was almost the house that landed on the witch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Hillary will win, but she will be a one-term President, if she even finishes out her term without impeachment or resigning.
Realistically, this election does NOT favor the GOP not matter what way you slice it. Obama's Presidency is coming to a close with healthy approval rating, peace, economic expansion, and without scandal. Given those circumstances, the party in power usually always remains in power.
Hillary was the worst choice to carry on Obama's legacy though, and I blame the media for coronating her as inevitable for years. I don't believe the American people wanted Hillary, but the media forced her down our throats. I would have been excited to vote for Bernie or Biden or Elizabeth Warren to carry on the great legacy of the last eight years, but not Hillary.
If Hillary wins, she'll be lucky to live another 4 years. She's looks as healthy as a corpse.
Oh, and thanks for the chuckle you gave me about "the great legacy of the last eight years". I needed a good laugh right about now.
Bill Clinton had FAR better approval ratings, a FAR better economy (most jobs ever, great GDP), and Al Gore still lost to the chimp. Not necessarily true therefore.
Obama is around 50% (Bill's was around 60%+, upwards of 70% for parts of his second term) most of Obama's presidency has been below 50% approval.
Its largely because the opposition to Hillary is laughable.
Gore also distanced himself from Clinton when he ran for office. His idea was he was afraid Clintons scandals would drag him down. Would you like to try again?
Gore also distanced himself from Clinton when he ran for office. His idea was he was afraid Clintons scandals would drag him down. Would you like to try again?
This.
As I said, Gore could have won in 2000 in a landslide had he have run on Clinton's accomplishments rather than trying to distance himself. Anybody who cared about the Lewinsky sex scandal was already voting for Bush anyways.
Gore also distanced himself from Clinton when he ran for office. His idea was he was afraid Clintons scandals would drag him down. Would you like to try again?
Yes, and that turned out to be a huge mistake. Bill Clinton's approval rating was 70% at the height of the Lewinsky scandal and had no negative impact on him.
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.
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.
