Dante Would Consider Voting For John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush in 2016

[Procrustes Stretched]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

that's how we got Obama.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. No more wunderkind puppets either.

Why not? Do you hate democracy?

We are not a democracy...and I'd like to keep us from devolving further into a plutocracy.

Jesus, this again?

We are a democratic republic. Ok?

We live in a democracy. Our system of government is a republican one.

goodbye

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Canada versus Italy? Interesting. Canada has been demonized in American politics. They are more like us than not. But they have a parliamentary system. I dislike that.

Care to expound?

here?
Not really. It would be another thread

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run?

I never said you shouldn't get to; I just pointed out that I won't.

 

[Pogo]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

It shouldn't be a benchmark or a goal for its own sake, no (hence "just sayin'). It's simply an observation about patterns.

To me that pattern just might have a certain affinity with the same complacency that gives us drone-binary voting.

 

[Pogo]

No Bush or Clinton is getting my vote.

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run? A Monarchy is not about one family being in office. It's about the power in the hands of the Monarchy and birthright. Thee is no vote on who gets to be a Monarch, unless of course there is a rebellion

Worthy worthy points, both the present and the prior one responded to.

The problem is a single-party oligarchy, whether it pretends to dress in two different colours or not, is a distinction without a difference from a monarchy. Thus there's little appeal in either one.

We are all one big liberal party. We all come out of a tradition of liberal democracy. Conservatives and Liberals are all traceable back to the same people, movements, and ideas.

Some people get disillusioned because they can never get others to listen to them, but what they fail to grasp is that change will only come from inside. Any outside change in our tradition will result only from bloodshed and rebellion. But at what and at what cost? Americans do not have the stomach for such radical change because no matter how bad tings get we still have it good relatively speaking.

People like you NEED to step up and try to convince others. But doing that means abandoning certain traits and taking on new ones. You have to dress the part and speak the part in order to live the part

Not sure what that means. Kinda vague. But if it means anything in the direction of co-optation or pandering, I'd respond that one needs to be true to one's ideals. When one isn't they're no longer ideals; they're past history.

Or to put it another way, I have a hell of a lot more respect for a politician whose positions oppose mine in everything, if he's at least honest and consistent about where it is he stands, than one who takes positions I like but has the backbone of a jellyfish.

-- which is, for example, exactly why when Democrats came out of the woodwork for a chance to run against Bush I, Bill Clinton ranked, and stayed, dead last on my preference list.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I'd vote for Jeb before I'd vote for Hillary.

 

[Ernie S.]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

I agree. We shouldn't be electing Presidents based on plumbing or pigment.

 

[Pogo]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

I agree. We shouldn't be electing Presidents based on plumbing or pigment.

Concur. The observation is simply that we haven't, while a lot of countries have. Doesn't prove or disprove anything, just an indicator that change might come more slowly around these parts than it does in the rest of the world. One could say it indicates we're a lot more conservative a society than some of the more unhinged would have us believe.

 

[Ernie S.]

I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in a heart beat and that has nothing to do with plumbing or skin color other than the fact that Liberal heads would explode trying to avoid coming of misogynistic or racist while debating her.While that would please me to no end, I also realize that if she had been born a white male, we would never have heard her name.

 

[Pogo]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

I agree. We shouldn't be electing Presidents based on plumbing or pigment.

Or religion.

To this day I am stupefied as to why, when you look up a politician on Wiki, there even exists a sidebar info entry for "religion". Yet it's always there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not voting for somebody because of their name is a negative vote. The unintended consequences rules here

This country didn't fight a war over 200 years ago to overthrow a monarchy just so we could start electing one. Nothing good comes out of either of those two being president. Just further consolidation of the power into fewer hands.

Hyperbole will get you nowhere in an argument. Power has always been in few hands. As a matter of fact over 200 years ago power was in fewer hands and it worked better.

Why should I or anyone else for that matter not get to vote for somebody because others think they should run? A Monarchy is not about one family being in office. It's about the power in the hands of the Monarchy and birthright. Thee is no vote on who gets to be a Monarch, unless of course there is a rebellion

Worthy worthy points, both the present and the prior one responded to.

The problem is a single-party oligarchy, whether it pretends to dress in two different colours or not, is a distinction without a difference from a monarchy. Thus there's little appeal in either one.

We are all one big liberal party. We all come out of a tradition of liberal democracy. Conservatives and Liberals are all traceable back to the same people, movements, and ideas.

Some people get disillusioned because they can never get others to listen to them, but what they fail to grasp is that change will only come from inside. Any outside change in our tradition will result only from bloodshed and rebellion. But at what and at what cost? Americans do not have the stomach for such radical change because no matter how bad tings get we still have it good relatively speaking.

People like you NEED to step up and try to convince others. But doing that means abandoning certain traits and taking on new ones. You have to dress the part and speak the part in order to live the part

Not sure what that means. Kinda vague. But if it means anything in the direction of co-optation or pandering, I'd respond that one needs to be true to one's ideals. When one isn't they're no longer ideals; they're past history.

Or to put it another way, I have a hell of a lot more respect for a politician whose positions oppose mine in everything, if he's at least honest and consistent about where it is he stands, than one who takes positions I like but has the backbone of a jellyfish.

-- which is, for example, exactly why when Democrats came out of the woodwork for a chance to run against Bush I, Bill Clinton ranked, and stayed, dead last on my preference list.

People who are stubborn and refuse to compromise more often than not fail to make positive change.

GHW Bush's loss had nothing to do with your fantasy story. Ross Perot ring a bell? Bill Clinton won a plurality with just 43% of the vote to Bush's 37.5%

Pat Buchanan savaged Bush. You had Ron Paul running around as crazy as ever. Crazy Alan Keys was running around. Poor George (born with the silver foot in his mouth) was doomed, even though he waged and won a hugely successful at that time, war.

Lots more on the domestic front, so enough with the talking points and bumper sticker analysis

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd vote for Jeb before I'd vote for Hillary.

care to offer a few reasons why?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

I agree. We shouldn't be electing Presidents based on plumbing or pigment.

I've actually met former Democrats who voted for Obama in 2008 and left the Dem party only to vote again for Obama in 2012 because they didn't want to see the first black President be a one-termer (thank you McConnell). Dante didn't vote for Obama in 2008 but did in 2012

go figure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice in a heart beat and that has nothing to do with plumbing or skin color other than the fact that Liberal heads would explode trying to avoid coming of misogynistic or racist while debating her.While that would please me to no end, I also realize that if she had been born a white male, we would never have heard her name.

Condi? Not ready for prime time Condi?

 

[OKTexas]

there are lots of Democrats, former Democrats and Liberals out there that I know would consider voting for Jeb. Consideration is what rational and reasonable people put out there when faced with credible and experienced candidates

Of course you would support Bush, he's a globalist just like his daddy, brother and the Hildabeast. After all he's a member in good standing with the CFR.

 

[Toro]

No more Bushes. No more Clintons. No more wunderkind puppets either.

Why not? Do you hate democracy?

We are not a democracy...and I'd like to keep us from devolving further into a plutocracy.

Are you joking?

I voted on 33 different issues or people in 2012.

There's no more democratic place on earth than America.

 

[Ravi]

I don't much like Jeb but he doesn't suck to Dubya's extent.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Dante Would Consider Voting For Jeb Bush in 2016

I disagree with him on the Florida high speed rail initiative, but I also agree with him on many other things. At least he tackled environment and education issues. Not much to disagree with there/ .

This was honest and in some way heroic: Bush was asked what he would do for African Americans if he gets elected, responding: "It’s time to strive for a society where there’s equality of opportunity, not equality of results. So I’m going to answer your question by saying: probably nothing." -- wikipedia link - It probably cost him the election -- but he was honest and what is not to like about what he said?

Bush was responsible for creating the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship which provides corporations with tax credits for donations to Scholarship Funding Organizations which must spend 100% of the donations on scholarships for low income students. - wikipedia link -


I actually prefer the elites like the Bush family to the people like Obama and Carter and Reagan.

I like the Clintons too

Sue me

Jeb Bush will need to explain his signature on the Project for a New American Century's, statement of principles before I would ever consider a vote for him.

Review the document here

http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/pfpc/PNAC---statement of principles.pdf

and pay special attention to the names of those who signed this document along with Bush, those who ginned up the 'need' for the war in Iraq which killed 4,500 + young Americans, and wounded 10,000 more - many with life changing injuries.

 

[Ernie S.]

I just can't imagine the president of the United States by the name of "Jeb".

Of course ten years ago I would never in a million years believe we would elect a president by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

For that matter we've never had a POTUS with a female name... and in the big picture of world nations we're pretty far behind on that as a benchmark. Just sayin'.

That should not matter.

I agree. We shouldn't be electing Presidents based on plumbing or pigment.

Or religion.

To this day I am stupefied as to why, when you look up a politician on Wiki, there even exists a sidebar info entry for "religion". Yet it's always there.

Unless he's Mormon..... THAT really freaked me out how many; especially JoeB got so ugly about Mitt Romney's religion.
I do remember the noise about JFK being Catholic, but never subscribed to the whole "The Pope will be running America" thing any more than I figured if Joe Lieberman was VP, that we would outlaw bacon.
I happen to like both bacon and the former Senator from my home state.