2016 Presidential Primaries [ SUPER TUESDAY | 3-1-'16]

Hawk said:
Sorry, I missed the Huffington Post manifesto providing me all the reasons I should hate Jeb Bush.

This is a candidate who aligns with liberal platforms on education, immigration, and at times big government, so your vitriol comes across as superficially partisan.
Click to expand...

horse race observations. I dont think anyone should hate Jeb. I just think his managerial style doesn't cut national mustard.
 
57Brave said:
Here ya go Hawk.

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/96z6gs/the-kin-s-speech
Click to expand...

I think it's a good day for Jeb when the absolute most the liberal media machine can muster to 'attack' him is, "Well, your brother sucked!"

What about his record? Policies?

I actually look forward to that day, because he makes mincemeat out of many of the other candidates.

Although I suppose we'll also have to wade through his drug-addicted daughter and Terry Schiavo before we get to those meat and potatoes.

---

But I did like the, "Hey, I'm going to call you 'Rooster' because your feisty ... and have red hair" quip.
 
or this:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppin...r-hawks-dismayed-by-jebs-dithering#.xs8GbGJq7

///

Many of the party’s old-guard Iraq hawks hoped Bush would be the exception. They wanted to see him go to bat for his brother’s legacy in the region — reminding the electorate that, botched intel aside, there were good reasons to topple the Hussein regime and seek democratic change in the country. And more to the point, many believe the case should be made on the campaign trail that President Obama made a grave mistake in pulling troops out of Iraq.

////////////
from where I sit this seems the worse of the mistakes. Policy aside ---

As David Frum, a former White House speechwriter for Bush 43, wrote in Politico, “Sooner or later the question had to be asked. Yet, somehow Jeb Bush failed to be prepared for it.” How is it possible that he didn’t already have well-rehearsed talking points to address what was arguably the most polarizing — and defining — chapter of his brother’s presidency?
 
Hey Hawk -- seen this ? Perhaps you and your friends should start reading what I and and my comrades read. Just saying
//////////////////////////////////////////

Wait, there’s more: Incredibly, Mr. Bush resorted to the old passive-voice dodge, admitting only that “mistakes were made.” Indeed. By whom? Well, earlier this year Mr. Bush released a list of his chief advisers on foreign policy, and it was a who’s-who of mistake-makers, people who played essential roles in the Iraq disaster and other debacles.
....

Given how badly these predictions turned out — we had the biggest housing bust in history, inflation paranoia has been wrong for six years and counting, and 2014 delivered the best job growth since 1999 — you might think that there would be some room in the G.O.P. for economists who didn’t get everything wrong. But there isn’t. Having been completely wrong about the economy, like having been completely wrong about Iraq, seems to be a required credential.

.....

What’s going on here? My best explanation is that we’re witnessing the effects of extreme tribalism. On the modern right, everything is a political litmus test. Anyone who tried to think through the pros and cons of the Iraq war was, by definition, an enemy of President George W. Bush and probably hated America; anyone who questioned whether the Federal Reserve was really debasing the currency was surely an enemy of capitalism and freedom.

.........

It doesn’t matter that the skeptics have been proved right. Simply raising questions about the orthodoxies of the moment leads to excommunication, from which there is no coming back. So the only “experts” left standing are those who made all the approved mistakes. It’s kind of a fraternity of failure: men and women united by a shared history of getting everything wrong, and refusing to admit it. Will they get the chance to add more chapters to their reign of error?

/////

Reva New York City 4 hours ago

Jeb Bush acts like he wishes he could just get elected without having to stand for anything underneath. The only thing that comes through strongly with him is family loyalty, to the detriment of this country. He helped push his brother into the White House and now won't take a firm policy stand about brother-related issues. If he'd, for example, let all the Florida votes be counted in 2000, he'd have looked courageous, very much "my own man" now. But he's a hollow shell who has, Romney-like, already flip-flopped several times.
....

I've made my point me thinks
 
57Brave said:
Hey Hawk -- seen this ? Perhaps you and your friends should start reading what I and and my comrades read. Just saying
Click to expand...

I read a little of everything, I'd encourage you to do the same. Helps to provide a more nuanced perspective.

I've made my point me thinks
Click to expand...

I know you do, because copying and pasting Paul Krugman op-eds really drills the point home, doesn't it?

Wake me up when you want to have a real discussion instead of using others' words to make boring arguments.
 
a) I agree with what Krugman wrote and find he better articulated the point. He pretty much "drove the point home" because I don't see a rebuttal

b) The observation was that that Jeb is a horrible candidate and in over his head at the national level. If you disagree -- I'm all ears

c) I read a lot - and haven't seen them coming out of the woodwork to stand by Jeb
 
Litmus tests? Guessing one is for them issue by issue
Is overturning Citizens United a winning issue?

Hillary Clinton told a group of her top fundraisers Thursday that if she is elected president, her nominees to the Supreme Court will have to share her belief that the court's 2010 Citizens United decision must be overturned, according to people who heard her remarks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ominees-a-pledge-to-overturn-citizens-united/
 
57Brave said:
a) I agree with what Krugman wrote and find he better articulated the point. He pretty much "drove the point home" because I don't see a rebuttal
Click to expand...

I'd like to see you articulate points. Is that really so much to ask?

b) The observation was that that Jeb is a horrible candidate and in over his head at the national level. If you disagree -- I'm all ears
Click to expand...

Yeah, you've said this several times the past couple of pages (including a wispy attempt to attack the character of wife) but have yet to provide any a) fact or b) meaningful commentary outside of "he's a train wreck" etc, etc, etc.

Like I said earlier, it could not be more evident that your 'hatred' for Bush stems from the simple fact that he's a Republican and that makes it really tedious to engage with you on any meaningful level.

c) I read a lot - and haven't seen them coming out of the woodwork to stand by Jeb
Click to expand...

I guess it must seem that way when the party you've sworn your undying allegiance to has known who its nominee was going to be in 2016 for almost a decade.
 
Hawk, you're detailed oriented enough that maybe you can give me some specific ideas about what you want the Republican candidate (and the Republican party for that matter) to do IF they win big again next year? What are some really specific ideas you want to see done and I'd hope to have some specifics "whys and wherefores" given too if you would. You certainly don't have to do this, I just see you as someone who leans right who might actually understand why, at least to a pretty decent degree.

So, what say you?
 
Hawk said:
I'd like to see you articulate points. Is that really so much to ask?

Yeah, you've said this several times the past couple of pages (including a wispy attempt to attack the character of wife) but have yet to provide any a) fact or b) meaningful commentary outside of "he's a train wreck" etc, etc, etc.

Like I said earlier, it could not be more evident that your 'hatred' for Bush stems from the simple fact that he's a Republican and that makes it really tedious to engage with you on any meaningful level.

I guess it must seem that way when the party you've sworn your undying allegiance to has known who its nominee was going to be in 2016 for almost a decade.
Click to expand...

Let's re visit this topic in a few weeks and see where Jeb is. I've been clear my opinion of his political skills and I think his campaign is a train wreck.
You in turn are in the boat with Rush Limbaugh as the last two people that disagree with the overwhelming sentiment.

Didn't you and I have this same discussion a year or so back over the political future of Chris Christie
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Hawk, you're detailed oriented enough that maybe you can give me some specific ideas about what you want the Republican candidate (and the Republican party for that matter) to do IF they win big again next year? What are some really specific ideas you want to see done and I'd hope to have some specifics "whys and wherefores" given too if you would. You certainly don't have to do this, I just see you as someone who leans right who might actually understand why, at least to a pretty decent degree.

So, what say you?
Click to expand...

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I subscribe to politics on a cyclical level and try to identify the broad direction of policy/reform in the country as something I either support or condemn. I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed in the symbolism of his candidacy and, furthermore, was ready for a political reset following what I considered to be an unnaturally drastic shift to the right following 9/11.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those theorists who believes that a constant tug of war for center ground is the bottom line. I think you go in a direction as long as it's healthy and in the best interests of the citizenry at large.

I use Europe as an example a lot: look at France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Chirac is replaced by Sarkozy who is replaced by Hollande. Major is replaced by Blair who is replaced, briefly, by Brown and then Cameron. Schroeder is replaced by Merkel. The French loved dirigism until it broke, the British loved laissez-faire until it stopped working, the Germans loved neoliberalism until they wanted more money.

That's not to say there is a definitive right or wrong system of governance. But there are some methods which historically work better than others when certain conditions are present.

With respect to America, I'm concerned about the long term implications of an economic system which supports high-levels of federal spending as a mechanism to spur growth. I think 'stimulaton' can only be a short term bandage for a system that is permanently entrenched in capitalist ideology.

A small government recalibration, something that Republicans generally represent, begins the process of correcting that potential pitfall.

My passion is foreign affairs, and I'll partially admit to harboring the ambitions of my nickname in that regard -- with the large caveat being that I believe diplomacy is almost a great lost art. I'd say: speak persuasively and carry a big stick. I think Obama has utterly failed as an international functionary and believe the nation is desperate for change in that arena.

I'm agnostic when it comes to social issues. Sure, I have my opinions but I'm basically OK with falling in line with general national sentiment once it reaches the point of becoming law.

In terms of being a pure ideologue, I believe healthcare is a basic human right, as is education, and also marijuana (to start).
 
57Brave said:
Didn't you and I have this same discussion a year or so back over the political future of Chris Christie
Click to expand...

Yeah, IIRC you overreached and said his political career was over (last I checked he's polling on the same level as Rand Paul) and I said that nobody cared about "Bridgegate" outside of people from New Jersey.
 
Krgrecw said:
Bush. From a mathematical standpoint he's the only one who could beat Clinton.
Click to expand...

Unless he keeps saying dumbass stuff about Iraq. IMO if it weren't for the first (well actually the second) Bush, Jeb would be close to a guaranteed winner, as it is who knows? But I do agree the more we all find out about the rest of the R nominees he will will probably rise to the top. I think his biggest challenges will come from the lunatic fringe sections of his own party, they are already turning on him and we haven't even really started yet.
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Unless he keeps saying dumbass stuff about Iraq. IMO if it weren't for the first (well actually the second) Bush, Jeb would be close to a guaranteed winner, as it is who knows? But I do agree the more we all find out about the rest of the R nominees he will will probably rise to the top. I think his biggest challenges will come from the lunatic fringe sections of his own party, they are already turning on him and we haven't even really started yet.
Click to expand...

Same for Hillary. Her big challengers will be from the lunatic fringe part of the dem party (warren, sanders).

IMO, the presidental nomination will come down to two things. First, will the independents and everyone else on the fence overlook Hillarys emails, Benghazi, and whatever else pops up? Secondly can Bush take Florida? If he can, he'd have a shot. If Bush can't take Florida, Hillary wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top