Bush was never a great president, but according to few sources he, like Obama, never used Islamic terrorists to describe such terrorists. Hell, Bush even advocated for accepting Muslims, no? Though, under his reign Muslims were arrested, questioned, and all that shit. Bush played a huge part in the downfall of the economy and the country.
Shes votable and wont make america worst but Im not aligned with her 100% to say that she will be a great president like Bush. I just dont want trump there and she at least has sensible economic ideals and experience with foreign affairs.
Okay, well then I guess I was mistaken a bit. It just seems like you usually have criticism for Clinton, but don't really have much commentary for Trump...like, at all. At least since before primary season really got into full swing.
So I guess you're begrudgingly voting for her because she isn't Trump?
--- Double Post Merged, ---
I sort of look at GW Bush as bizarro-world Jimmy Carter. He seemed somewhat salt of the earth, maybe even affable.... wasn't necessarily ineffective (maybe inept, but who knows?), but what he did allow under his administration had disastrous consequences for the country and world. But he also had to deal with an incredibly insane terrorist attack, the likes of which had never before been seen. The reaction in response to it was almost equal in magnitude on the insanity-meter though, in retrospect...especially when it comes to the Constitution. The thing that damned his legacy was the war in Iraq though. No matter what position you try to look at it from, it's hard to not see how cynical that entire situation was.
Funny thing though, many conservatives end up saying Bush was right in that there were weapons of mass destruction, but didn't they find it years after the start of the war? And didn't both parties agree to the Iraq War?
I'm not sure if his legacy was damned by the Iraq War as much as it was by choking on a pretzel. I feel bad for Bush for being attacked for something that could and likely has happened to so many people.
Last sentence is unrelated. But I"m just saying how conservatives attack Obama for not calling terrorists Islamic terrorists when Bush did the same exact thing. Trump's rhetoric is bullshit, based on nothing but fear, lies, and exaggeration.
Though, the NYC bombing suspect seems to have come from Afghanistan and wasn't necessarily homegrown.
Funny thing though, many conservatives end up saying Bush was right in that there were weapons of mass destruction, but didn't they find it years after the start of the war? And didn't both parties agree to the Iraq War?
I'm not sure if his legacy was damned by the Iraq War as much as it was by choking on a pretzel. I feel bad for Bush for being attacked for something that could and likely has happened to so many people.
Last sentence is unrelated. But I"m just saying how conservatives attack Obama for not calling terrorists Islamic terrorists when Bush did the same exact thing. Trump's rhetoric is bullshit, based on nothing but fear, lies, and exaggeration.
Though, the NYC bombing suspect seems to have come from Afghanistan and wasn't necessarily homegrown.
I was under the impression that nowadays both sides are in agreement in regards to the non existence of Iraq's weapons at the time of the invasion. As for how that should be seen today.... perhaps the fairest way would be to look at the information they had at the time and see whether going there was or wasn't dumb. The war in hindsight was a huge mistake and it's repercussions are felt today but it's plausible that the information congress had made it seem like a not so stupid choice. Of course, in that case blame would mostly fall on US intelligence which for some reason provided information inaccurate enough to trigger a pointless war.
I thought there were a couple other things that stained GWB presidency. The first that comes to mind would be the no child gets left behind act which as far as I understand has hurt US education more than it has helped. Isn't this the one that made it so that schools that score lower than others on standarized test get "punished" and thus receive less funding? As in, the opposite of how it should be? And then there are the bush tax cuts. Republicans made the point that an unprecedented growth period would come thanks to those. Which obviously was not even vaguely close to what happened and in turn merely increased income inequality and the budget deficit.
From what I have read so far, it seems like the guy who placed the bombs was born in Afghanistan, came here as a kid or teenager, never particularly adapted to the culture here and on his trips to visit his family was radicalized. He doesn't quite fit the "homegrown" terrorist definition but he isn't exactly foreign either considering he is an US citizen.
Unfortunately this is likely to give trump a boost as well. Hopefully people will realize that most of what trump says really has absolutely no substance in regards to terrorism. Seriously, the guy still pretends his ISIS plans are secret (hint, they don't exist) and says he will give generals 30 days to come up with plan to beat ISIS quickly and efficiently. Gosh, if only obama had thought of that, how stupid.... Either trump thinks US people are actually as dumb as their worst stereotypes or trump is even more stupid than I already think he is. Now that I think about it perhaps this makes a bit more sense if he is actually planning to tell the US military to consider nukes into his plans..... I mean, considering his rhetoric so far he seems to be more than willing, wanting if anything, to bomb civilians and terrorist alike so going from such brutality to a nuke in his mind is perhaps not that different... With that in mind the order would basically be "you have 30 days to figure out where exactly to nuke isis to make it disappear".
I thought the main reason for entering the war was revenge for 9/11, or at least that was the reason used, although WMD was another one. I'm also hearing it was for oil and/or Bush Jr's desire for revenge for what happened to his dad. I didn't know No Child Left Behind did that. I thought the point was to make all lessons/curriculum the same so no child gets too ahead or left behind. I remember the backlash because some kids would get too bored or held back going at the same pace as the slower kids.
I would still consider him foreign to a degree, as he was born elsewhere and grew up here. Interestingly, despite questions the agent/s never thought him to be radicalized, so he was allowed to come back in. But, given that he did live in US for a while, this kinda proves that US has to focus on the terrorists that grew up in the US and not on the people that grew up in the Middle East.
LOOOOOL, what are you, naive? This is another attack that basically "proves" Trump was right and justified in banning Muslims from entering the country. Most of his supporters are brainwashed fucktards, give or take few more adjectives, so what makes you think they have reason to believe Trump's plans won't work when it comes to Muslims, terrorism, or safety? It's exactly his promise to ban Muslims and build a wall that got him so much popularity, along with lying about Muslims and making them look bad. People actually said, tweeted, and thought Trump was right when an Islamic terrorist shot up the Orlando nightclub, and Trump was criticized by anti-Trumps for thanking people for congratulations.
Pretty sure Trump thinks the US is stupid, the US is stupid, and Trump is stupid. Combination of three. He likely wouldn't wait to try and nuke ISIS, he'd just point to a random spot in the MIddle East and bullshit his way into dropping the deuce no matter how populated it is, or even if it's in Europe. Most conservatives are lying idiots, and I base this on fact checking 95% of the shit they say and looking at the results from Google whenever I google for news or something, like Obama's birthplace (conservative sources still say he wasn't born in America and say he's a Muslim or was born in Kenya or some shit).
Christ, it's sad how liberals try to restrict freedom of speech and want strict political correctness while conservatives want to restrict freedom in general for anyone not a white, wealthy male and want political correctness that's family friendly, but be allowed to say bigoted stuff.
I thought the main reason for entering the war was revenge for 9/11, or at least that was the reason used, although WMD was another one. I'm also hearing it was for oil and/or Bush Jr's desire for revenge for what happened to his dad. I didn't know No Child Left Behind did that. I thought the point was to make all lessons/curriculum the same so no child gets too ahead or left behind. I remember the backlash because some kids would get too bored or held back going at the same pace as the slower kids.
I would still consider him foreign to a degree, as he was born elsewhere and grew up here. Interestingly, despite questions the agent/s never thought him to be radicalized, so he was allowed to come back in. But, given that he did live in US for a while, this kinda proves that US has to focus on the terrorists that grew up in the US and not on the people that grew up in the Middle East.
LOOOOOL, what are you, naive? This is another attack that basically "proves" Trump was right and justified in banning Muslims from entering the country. Most of his supporters are brainwashed fucktards, give or take few more adjectives, so what makes you think they have reason to believe Trump's plans won't work when it comes to Muslims, terrorism, or safety? It's exactly his promise to ban Muslims and build a wall that got him so much popularity, along with lying about Muslims and making them look bad. People actually said, tweeted, and thought Trump was right when an Islamic terrorist shot up the Orlando nightclub, and Trump was criticized by anti-Trumps for thanking people for congratulations.
Pretty sure Trump thinks the US is stupid, the US is stupid, and Trump is stupid. Combination of three. He likely wouldn't wait to try and nuke ISIS, he'd just point to a random spot in the MIddle East and bullshit his way into dropping the deuce no matter how populated it is, or even if it's in Europe. Most conservatives are lying idiots, and I base this on fact checking 95% of the shit they say and looking at the results from Google whenever I google for news or something, like Obama's birthplace (conservative sources still say he wasn't born in America and say he's a Muslim or was born in Kenya or some shit).
Christ, it's sad how liberals try to restrict freedom of speech and want strict political correctness while conservatives want to restrict freedom in general for anyone not a white, wealthy male and want political correctness that's family friendly, but be allowed to say bigoted stuff.
Well, technically speaking Iraq never had any sort of relationship with the terrorists that attacked the twin towers. Nor was there any reason to even think there was a connection. So formally the reason at least was the ultimately imaginary WMDs. I never heard about anything happening to GB sr though. Well, the US has trouble with the standarized tests but maybe I was off about that being connected to no child gets left behind. Gonna read up on that make sure.
Well, rather than realizing that trump's "plans" won't work I kinda hope people realize how imaginary they are. Trump's plans for dealing with terrorists are as imaginary as rainbow snorting unicorns after all. I would say they are as imaginary as Iraq's WMDs but that of course would be too exaggerated an example to be taken seriously....
What restriction has happened recently? I didn't hear of any case of freedom of speech being restricted...
9/11 was just an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, which I don't know any actual correlations between a tragic day attacked by Saudi-nationals and Saddam Hussein's rein on Iraq (although from what I've heard, he was an important man for the CIA, but how important he was is unknown because he's dead). Then there's also the excuse that the U.S. brings in Democracy to Iraq (Democracy my ass, we've left Iraq as an Anarchy, just as we've left Libya as one; hell, the U.S. isn't even a Democracy to begin with), and another excuse to say that people are being oppressed in Iraq so we're going to be the police about it and swing by the country with bombs. Interventions such as these have proven to be a clusterfuck of a disaster countless of times (from Vietnam, to Iraq, to Libya, and now Syria with the Free Syria Army telling the U.S. to fuck off after the stunts they've pulled), but I know this will be something that can never be learned, not until people actually realizes that.
So the news just came in: Former President George H.W. Bush is voting for Hillary. Now I wonder if any of his supporters could still place their trust on him (not that his trust is still intact to begin with, after his horrible presidency).
Trump supporters who actually attempt to follow some sort of coherent logic would probably be fine rejecting any Bush endorsement of him on principle. The guy has talked a bunch of shit about GW. What will be funny to see is if he'll actually keep his mouth shut in regard to Bush 41, if it's true. It's still not verified info and comes from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's private facebook account. The whole thing seems like she might have taken advantage of a senile 90+ year old, but honestly, they already established that they wouldn't be endorsing Trump either...so maybe it means nothing at the end of the day.
But yeah, marrying Clinton to the Bushes is something Trump supporters would love to do, because they're not a popular family really...Kennedy-Townsend doing this is just another example of her lack of common sense. She ran a terrible campaign here for governor and lost to a Republican in Maryland...with the legacy of being the eldest daughter of RFK... She always came off as a total dunce to me.
Clinton and Bush actually had a very loyal relationship to each other before the iraq war debacle.
This is part of the reason for clinton to vote in favour of the war, because she trusted bush and wanted to repay him for his fast aide to rebuild new york (she was senator of new york at that time).
Clinton and Bush actually had a very loyal relationship to each other before the iraq war debacle.
This is part of the reason for clinton to vote in favour of the war, because she trusted bush and wanted to repay him for his fast aide to rebuild new york (she was senator of new york at that time).
Oh, I wasn't implying the link would be invented. I'm just saying that if Clinton supporters expect this to be some sort of coup for them (like Kennedy-Townsend seems to think it is...?), I wouldn't rush to that conclusion. Trump and his campaign would love to be able to use this to emphasize a relationship between the Bushes and Clintons. That kind of thing is right in their wheelhouse.
I think it really does not matter at this point.
Whoever believes propaganda about clinton is already gone as a voter for her.
Every card about clinton being a warmongerer is already played.
Trump can do that to feed his angry crowd, sure, but i don't see a big effect.
Clinton and Bush are both smart enough to not have, for example, Bush run arround talking about how great clinton is.
As long as bush just says he does not support trump everything is fine.
And we shouldnt forget that bush senior left office with one of the highest approval ratings of the recent presidents. His voice is heard in the rep crowd.
9/11 was just an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, which I don't know any actual correlations between a tragic day attacked by Saudi-nationals and Saddam Hussein's rein on Iraq (although from what I've heard, he was an important man for the CIA, but how important he was is unknown because he's dead). Then there's also the excuse that the U.S. brings in Democracy to Iraq (Democracy my ass, we've left Iraq as an Anarchy, just as we've left Libya as one; hell, the U.S. isn't even a Democracy to begin with), and another excuse to say that people are being oppressed in Iraq so we're going to be the police about it and swing by the country with bombs. Interventions such as these have proven to be a clusterfuck of a disaster countless of times (from Vietnam, to Iraq, to Libya, and now Syria with the Free Syria Army telling the U.S. to fuck off after the stunts they've pulled), but I know this will be something that can never be learned, not until people actually realizes that.
So the news just came in: Former President George H.W. Bush is voting for Hillary. Now I wonder if any of his supporters could still place their trust on him (not that his trust is still intact to begin with, after his horrible presidency).
To be fair, shionoro has a point in that Lybia and Iraq are not really comparable. Iraq was left devastated specifically because the US invaded it. The US did not invade Libya. At the most there was a Nato led no fly zone. The civil war there was happening regardless of US or Nato intervention. At the most the no fly zone aided Ghadaffi's removal from power but even that is not even vaguely comparable to what happened in Iraq. Syria also did not happen because of the US. The civil war there started without US intervention IIRC. And currently the US is aiding the rebels but the alternatives to that would be to either do absolutely nothing, which doesn't necessarily help (except perhaps Asad), or help Assad which would imply aiding a brutal and murderous dictator.
GWB not supporting trump should be a bit of a non issue here. The guy is retired from politics for one thing. And for another his "followers" were already voting trump considering the extent to which the republican establishment and his brother were rejected during the primaries. Heck, Jeb lost freaking South Carolina. In the end GB is just another out of many establishment republicans that do not support trump. That said, having even GWB thinking you are too dumb or unfit to be president really says something lol.
To be fair, shionoro has a point in that Lybia and Iraq are not really comparable. Iraq was left devastated specifically because the US invaded it. The US did not invade Libya. At the most there was a Nato led no fly zone. The civil war there was happening regardless of US or Nato intervention. At the most the no fly zone aided Ghadaffi's removal from power but even that is not even vaguely comparable to what happened in Iraq. Syria also did not happen because of the US. The civil war there started without US intervention IIRC. And currently the US is aiding the rebels but the alternatives to that would be to either do absolutely nothing, which doesn't necessarily help (except perhaps Asad), or help Assad which would imply aiding a brutal and murderous dictator.
GWB not supporting trump should be a bit of a non issue here. The guy is retired from politics for one thing. And for another his "followers" were already voting trump considering the extent to which the republican establishment and his brother were rejected during the primaries. Heck, Jeb lost freaking South Carolina. In the end GB is just another out of many establishment republicans that do not support trump. That said, having even GWB thinking you are too dumb or unfit to be president really says something lol.
Yes, it's true that the US did not invade Libya, but my point is that U.S. supporting Rebels/"people for Democracy" has got to stop. Even President Obama stated that this was his greatest mistake in his presidency, especially when he wasn't even prepared for the aftermath.
I'm more referring to the U.S. supporting the Rebels in Syria tho. Just recently, the news went out that the U.S. killed some fighters because they thought they were part of ISIS or something along the line. Either way, I just think the U.S. only made the Civil War worse instead of helping (not that the U.S. is the only one to blame tho; Russia is another culprit).
Don't get the wrong idea tho, I don't endorse murderous leaders like Ghaddafi or Sadam Hussein, but I don't think the nations got any better after they were removed (and I don't think it will be fixed, not in this generation or the next at the very least).
Yes, it's true that the US did not invade Libya, but my point is that U.S. supporting Rebels/"people for Democracy" has got to stop. Even President Obama stated that this was his greatest mistake in his presidency, especially when he wasn't even prepared for the aftermath.
I'm more referring to the U.S. supporting the Rebels in Syria tho. Just recently, the news went out that the U.S. killed some fighters because they thought they were part of ISIS or something along the line. Either way, I just think the U.S. only made the Civil War worse instead of helping (not that the U.S. is the only one to blame tho; Russia is another culprit).
Don't get the wrong idea tho, I don't endorse murderous leaders like Ghaddafi or Sadam Hussein, but I don't think the nations got any better after they were removed (and I don't think it will be fixed, not in this generation or the next at the very least).
Obama said, in regards to Libya, that his greatest mistake was the lack of an "after" plan. Looking at the actual context, that the US was not directly involved and they only created a no fly zone presumably for people to be able to get out of danger, that would mean the issue specifically was not being involved enough. At least from what I have been able to read on the issue this was not a situation which was aggravated by the US.
Now, as far as syria goes.... That situation is a fair bit more complicated. Asad is a long time enemy of the US who supported terrorists. And was brutal towards it's citizens. I am probably missing information here but it does not seem like there ever was a clear or more obvious better path that the US should have taken. The whole thing started before ISIS was as much of a threat as it is. For another, the civil war was actually started by people there. So.... Should the US do absolutely nothing? Would that have made a difference? Should the US just abandon the allies it has now? Should it work with asad to restore the regime?
Ah, the bold bit was fun. Unfortunately I might have gotten confused, as the GB in question seems to be the dad of the one I was referring to. I don't know if he was as big as dumbass as his son (would be fun if he was though).
Obama said, in regards to Libya, that his greatest mistake was the lack of an "after" plan. Looking at the actual context, that the US was not directly involved and they only created a no fly zone presumably for people to be able to get out of danger, that would mean the issue specifically was not being involved enough. At least from what I have been able to read on the issue this was not a situation which was aggravated by the US.
Hmm.. guess I've misread some articles again. Well, I guess that also means that there needs preparations for the aftermath of such events, if we're ever going to supply aid to Rebels and Resistance groups.
Now, as far as syria goes.... That situation is a fair bit more complicated. Asad is a long time enemy of the US who supported terrorists. And was brutal towards it's citizens. I am probably missing information here but it does not seem like there ever was a clear or more obvious better path that the US should have taken. The whole thing started before ISIS was as much of a threat as it is. For another, the civil war was actually started by people there. So.... Should the US do absolutely nothing? Would that have made a difference? Should the US just abandon the allies it has now? Should it work with asad to restore the regime?
I don't see an enormous issue about the US supporting the Syrian people, it's just the problem that I'm seeing is the fuck-ups that the U.S. has made in the Middle East (from bombing a hospital, a wedding, and more recently the issue regarding the US killing rebels that most likely triggered Free Syria Army to get pissed off). What I'm trying to say is that this type of behavior would only sever trust between the rebels and the ones backing them, so if we're going to at least support them, they need to put their trust on us, or else they'll turn against us and become just like Hamas.
Hmm.. guess I've misread some articles again. Well, I guess that also means that there needs preparations for the aftermath of such events, if we're ever going to supply aid to Rebels and Resistance groups.
I don't see an enormous issue about the US supporting the Syrian people, it's just the problem that I'm seeing is the fuck-ups that the U.S. has made in the Middle East (from bombing a hospital, a wedding, and more recently the issue regarding the US killing rebels that most likely triggered Free Syria Army to get pissed off). What I'm trying to say is that this type of behavior would only sever trust between the rebels and the ones backing them, so if we're going to at least support them, they need to put their trust on us, or else they'll turn against us and become just like Hamas.
Well, that is how I interpreted obama's words after looking a bit more into how the whole thing developed. My take on that could be wrong. I am still iffy on the subject. But still, to me it kinda seems like obama regrets not doing more rather than doing too much and at least the US did not aggravate the situation.
I am not sure there is an issue of trust between the US and the rebels.... It's not like the rebels never fuck up. Not that I know of specific rebel fucks up but it sounds implausible that they don't make any. Now, that does not mean that all civilians would the US in a positive light either... It's just a different situation from Iraq. If someone asks "well, wth where we supposed do do?" referring to the Iraq situation it seems quite clear that the answer should be "well, lets not invade the people who had nothing to do with 9/11". Ask the same question for syria and the response does not seem to be THAT obvious at least.
Funny. Ted cruz' concern regarding hillary is that she would actually be able to get the stuff she has promised to do done. I saw a segment of a jill stein interview the other day and her primary concern was also exactly that, that hillary would actually be able to deliver on her agenda (and trump's laughable incompetence would amount to 4 years of nothing getting done). So you have two hillary enemies who stand on opposite ends of the spectrum who actually fear how competent hillary is. If only hillary could capitalize on how her political opponents think she is literally terrifyingly competent.
I should feel sorry for ted cruz being in a position where he has to support a man who has essentially accused his father of being involved in one of the worst things that has ever happened to an US president..... However at this point I only find it funny. The only upside to a trump presidency is that ted cruz would have been worst.
Lyin' Ted strikes again. There's no way to say for sure that Clinton will be responsible for nominating as many as 4 Supreme Court justices, unless he's betting on people to retire/die? That just seems like conjecture and in poor taste. And either way, she has no say in how a nominee would perform as a justice. Reagan nominated Justice Kennedy and that guy has shown to be a rather strict libertarian and swing vote in the modern Supreme Court, and not a strict conservative like Scalia was or Clarence Thomas or John Roberts is.
Both of the nominees Obama put forth that got approved were liberal-leaning justices who replaced...liberal-leaning justices, in David Souter and John Paul Stevens. However, both Stevens and Souter were expected to be moderately conservative nominees (both are Republicans) replacing Democrats like William Douglas and William Brennen. They were both nominated by REPUBLICAN presidents (Gerald Ford and Bush 41). So the same thing Cruz is complaining about Clinton possibly doing is something Republican presidents have done multiple times.
And besides all this, the person Obama put forth to fill Scalia's vacant spot, Merrick Garland, has been refused by congress to be called before a hearing, despite no real objection to his judicial record. Orrin Hatch even wanted him to be nominated to fill Douglas' spot. But now these do-nothing cretins would rather complain about the prospect of Clinton's potential nominee and use it as a political football instead of actually approving Merrick Garland, who was considered a consensus pick in the past. I've seen Republicans even say that Garland might be the best they're going to get to choose from, and yet they still leave the spot open for political reasons. It's a bunch of horseshit.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
In regards to the other stuff, it's just ideological differences. A redistribution of funding towards alternative fuel sources is a "war on coal" in the eyes of republicans. I wonder if the same kind of people complained about the expansion of the automobile industry as a "war on locomotives"? Besides this, we've seen a sharp decline in oil prices here under Obama, while it only seemed to rise under Bush 43.
Obamacare might not be a perfect system, but Trump himself want's to reform it and put something "better" in it's place. Whatever that happens to be, Obamacare has at least let these right-wing shills realize that a program is needed. But Republicans like Ted Cruz refuse to acknowledge the good the program has done, only the negative side-effects.
The immigration issue is a tough one. I'm of the mind that there's no actually "solution" to it.
I have no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to Internet Freedom. But do remember that the guy was against Net Neutrality, compared it to Obamacare, and was paid by Comcast and other big Telecom....I wonder if those two things are related
Gas prices here rose 20 cents in the past week, Obama is ruining the economy. Also I do agree with the war on coal, all those hardworking american families that cant pursue the American dream because democrats want to only enhance the quality of life for themselves and feel good about using more electricity to fund their ipods and ipads instead of using fuel sources that can keep people employed.
I have no idea wtf he's talking about in regards to Internet Freedom. But do remember that the guy was against Net Neutrality, compared it to Obamacare, and was paid by Comcast and other big Telecom....I wonder if those two things are related
Yeah, sounds confusing... At first I thought he was talking about TTIP or something but then he went on about russia, china and iran and he lost me.... Then again, I have never heard anything of ted cruz that evidences him knowing anything about the internet...
Besides this, we've seen a sharp decline in oil prices here under Obama, while it only seemed to rise under Bush 43. 