I agree with Eboue. It's more like the old Plantagenets than nepotism, really. It wan't just a simple case of son succeeding father, they could only do that because they had the support of the rest of the nobility, who knew that they were actually the maddest bastards around that would outslaughter any fecker else the kingdom could put up anyway, and therefore themselves were the most suitable to be king. Except for the bent one that lost Scotland, of course.
American Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
I do like that analogy. Whatever term is used, surely most would admit that it feels slightly dodgy to have Bush and Clinton as the leading candidates. Is this 1992 or what?
Like who?
In matters of foreign policy, Clinton and Obama for starters.
Maybe but I'm not sure what "left" and "right" mean in terms of foreign policy. For me the conservative/liberal divide has far more to do with socioeconomic issues. When it comes to foreign policy most democrats tend to be pragmatic. I doubt if even someone as far left as Warren would've done much different than Obama when it comes to foreign policy.
Well, it's a very broad topic and definitely open to interpretation. But, if Obama was actually a lefty, you'd have expected the United States to be slightly less bellicose than it was under the Bush regime. However, Obama actually ramped up the covert drone program which Bush was roundly criticised for. Massively so, in fact.
About the only lefty thing Obama has done (in terms of foreign policy) is the normalising of relations with Cuba. I don't think that that would have ever happened under a Republican president.
His (semi) restraint on Syria in the face on constant war-drums from Fox et. al. too- can't imagine Bush resisting the temptation.
Bush will invade Iraq
Like father like son(s)
Also there is no way Obama, or just about any other Democrat, would've invaded Iraq.
I'm not so sure. Over half of the Democrats in the Senate voted for the war (as well as a considerable chunk from Congress). Although, Obama was completely against it.
I've lived outside Texas for half my life but still claim to be a Texan. Jeb chose Florida for political purposes, for which its his decision to do so. I see nothing wrong with someone claiming he's Texan or Floridian. Who feck actually cares?
The US government has an authoritarian style hidden behind "democracy," and is very far right leaning on the political compass, just that one of the two main parties leans a little more left than the other. The US is a republic in all actuality. An honest system would allow all the main parties candidates to compete in an open presidential debate. The two main parties are basically one party separated by a few beliefs and concepts, and corporations have the biggest influence in our politics. The lunatic fringe, i.e the Tea Party, has fractured the Republican party, pushing further right into extremism, although I suspect the TPs will ultimately vanish but still yield some influence. It's in the best interests of the GOP (and the US) that the TP goes away.
This link is an interesting tool in that you can view elections, the candidates political compass, and take tests to see where you line up. Check out Obama's movement to the right when comparing 2008 vs 2012. http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
They voted for it because they were shamed into by the right, if they controlled the executive branch it (the invasion) would've never happened.
Sounds like a good reason to vote them all out of office and especially not let any of the ones who were shamed ever get anywhere near the Oval Office. But their votes had less to do with shame and more to do with lacking the guts to take an unpopular stand. Of course the repubs can't be let near the Oval Office either
Last edited:
And they were lied to with fake evidence. Evidence they wouldn't have created.
Wasn't the evidence created or supported by UK's Tony Blair, PM of UK's supposed left party.
Honest'y I've not followed how much he actually knew. Was he an insider? I figured he had been fooled too.
The actions the us took in spurring on the civil war in Syria fall squarely on the shoulders of the Obama administration. They are not the puppets of FOX news.
President jeb.......feck me we are going to have a clampett with his finger on the big red button.....this is how it all ends isn't it?
It was Jed Clampett not Jeb. 
Just to be a stickler for details for no reason at all.
Just to be a stickler for details for no reason at all.I know mate, I was aiming more at the inbred hillbillieness rather than the name similarity, in fact I'd missed thatIt was Jed Clampett not Jeb.
I thought he did well to back away from the worse approach being advoccated by his own Def. Sec., and most of Congress.
Bush/Romney/mcCain would probably have gone for the full-on invasion at some point, and given that the previous full-on invasion the US went for pretty much is the root cause of this crisis, that's s (baby) step better by Obama as compared to the alternatives.
Well none of the repubs were president Obama was. So we probably should hold our leaders to a higher standard then some fictional presidency of McCain or Romney. Obama has led us in meddling militarily in Libya, Syria, increased the use of drone str
romney and McCain presidencies do not exist they are make believe no point in comparing Obama to make believe presidents. He has been willing to continue us intervention and mischief in other nations such as Libya and Syria. Even the Ukraine. Those decisions all squarely rest on his doorstep. Still would rather him be president then any other choices we had but that does not give him a free ride
What actions specifically?
Arming many of the rebels sending the CIA over to help etc etc.
Here are the current odds with the 2016 whitehouse bid. I know its ridiculously early but as it stands its not encouraging for the Bush/Cruz Floritexas brigade on here
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/
Would be surprised if the repubs take the White House
Is there anyone on here who supports Cruz or Bush for that matter ?
The next election will be much closer imo. I get the sense the GOP have learned their lesson from the past two elections and will make a massive push for the White House. Unfortunatley, the demographics and swing states aren't leaning in their favor as they would have to sweep most of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, NC, Missouri, Colorado, and Nevada to win it. Many of those are traditional GOP leaning states, but the odds of all of them going back to the GOP are quite slim.
The other thing that might help them a little but won't be enough to push them over the top is the fact that Hillary can be a polarizing figure in US politics, there seems to be no middle ground with most voters, they either like her or hate her. But I don't think the balance is tilted towards those who hate her, so she will carry the election.
If there was a viable third party or independent candidate out there, they could do some real damage in a Bush v Clinton election. There just might be enough voters who would be tired of Bushes and Clintons to make a third candidate a player in the next election. But since no such person exists we will be stuck with another Bush v Clinton choice.
We shall see, I doubt they have let latinos infiltrate the upper echelons of the GOP enough yet
I can't see any way the repubs are close in the next election. More people vote which helps dems. There are no real exciting candidates as of yet however which could mean a smaller turnout of voters helping repubs. Still don't think it will be enough.
This of course assumes no major blows to the economy and no liberal 3rd party candidate.
This of course assumes no major blows to the economy and no liberal 3rd party candidate.
It entirely depends on the strength of the final two candidates. If the GOP put a guy like Jeb Bush up, they will have a decent chance, especially if they choose a VP candidate who can pull Ohio. The last few candidates were neither conservative by GOP standards, nor did they have sufficient crossover appeal, whereas Jeb Bush has cred in both araes. Hillary will face the same problem as last time of being the anointed one and will have to reinvent herself before the general election.
Jeb will be tied to his brother. Right or wrong that will definitely happen. You can almost write the campaign ad today. Hilary, will be tied to Bill, still revered by democrats. And if she pics someone like Warren (assuming she accepts) it would be a landslide. If Jeb can free himself from his brothers shadow, he'll be made to look like Christie and I'm not sure that excites the repub base.
It won't be the big Obama/McCain lanslide but it'll be big.
I don't care for Hillary but she's a much better choice for presidency than any GOP member. Hopefully, many neutrals and newcomers will feel the same way.
It will be the old giant douche vs a shit sandwich campaign all over again
Clinton and Biden enthusiastically supported both wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, and articulated their support for both wars on the floor of the US Senate in unusually strong terms that took a back seat to no Republican.
The only 2 politicians that can clean up the shit hole that is American politics are Bernie sanders and Elizabeth Warren. If those 2 are elected there could be real tangible change, starting with campaign finance reform and finally holding wall street accountable.
The entire impetus and rationale for the war sprang entirely from the Bush administration. They convinced the American people Iraq was some how part of the larger war on terror. After the public at large was convinced many dems cowardly went along with it as to not feel the public wrath. I stand by what I wrote; The Iraq invasion would've never happened with a Democrat in the white house.
No, no there wouldn't be. People seem to very much over estimate the power of the Presidency. Neither Warren nor Sander would be able to get much past congress, probably even less than Obama has.
- Status