Who should we elect?

[Boss]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

Do you think President Obama has moderated his views and has been apologetic regarding his core convictions?

 

[Boss]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

Do you think President Obama has moderated his views and has been apologetic regarding his core convictions?

irrelevant to the thread.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

Do you think President Obama has moderated his views and has been apologetic regarding his core convictions?

irrelevant to the thread.

Nope. You said that was the key to your supporting Cruz. Is that really so important to you?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ted Cruz!!!!! Go Ted go!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Cruz might be smart and articulate and panders shamelessly to extremist rightwingers who would elect Satan because he tells them exactly what they want to hear.

The reality is that Cruz is a smarmy lawyer who is about as self centered as it is possible for any politician to be.

He could certainly win the primaries given that the extremist RW'ers like the OP are gullible enough to fall for his brand of pandering BS.

But when it comes to the national election he is far too polarizing. He is on the record for taking way too many extreme positions. His push to shut down the government and his current kneejerk opposition to actually getting something done in the next Congress is going to mean that Independents and moderates will look at their options and shun the RW whackjob candidate that is Ted Cruz.

Cruz has zero experience and an abysmal track record in Congress. He cannot work across the aisle and he would be a foreign policy disaster.

So go ahead and make him the GOP candidate in 2016 and then you learn the lesson that the American electorate is NOT conservative.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If Bill Maher or Aaron Sorkin ran I'd register for the first time in my life for whichever party they ran under.

 

[Boss]

I usually shy away from picking a particular candidate this far ahead of an election. Most of the time, I want to hear more from the candidates before making up my mind. Lots of times in the past, the person I like is already out of the race before the primaries reach my state and I have to "settle" for what remains. Perhaps the same thing will happen in 2016, it remains to be seen.

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.

I look at the potential field of Republican candidates and woefully shake my head. Some of them are really good people, they have a good head on their shoulders, they say and do all the right things, but when you cut to the chase, they are all politicians at heart. Either that, or they are completely unqualified to take us where we need to go for the future. Forget about the Democratic Party, they have completely sold out to special interests and have adopted a soft Marxist philosophy which they don't intend to back away from anytime soon. I think this is a recipe for disaster and can't bring myself to even consider such an option. Likewise, I don't believe a third party candidate can garner enough support to win and if they did, would have no support in governing.

So what am I looking for in a president? Well, I think we need someone who is prepared to do what needs to be done regardless of public opinion. Someone who will stand up for what is right and not back down due to pressure from opposition or controversy, even within their own party. That is a rare type person indeed, in this day and age of push polls and focus groups. I like the tenacity of someone like Sarah Palin, but Palin is too reactionary and doesn't seem to understand how to handle criticism or personal attacks. I like the moxy of Rand Paul, but I think Rand suffers from being a Paul and tends to be a little nutty at times. Rick Perry and Scott Brown seem to be decent possibilities, but with Perry I just get a 'vibe' I don't like... maybe because he reminds me of George W. Bush a little? Brown seems to be a little sedated and not very dynamic, but he's still in the running from my perspective.

The candidate I have found to be the most palatable from a leadership perspective; One who I think would be a strong leader who could make the crucial decisions we'll need in the coming years and not bow to peer pressure or criticism, is Ted Cruz. He is the only politician with the balls to stand up and do what's best regardless of pressure. He doesn't back down, he is smart and articulate, he makes the case for conservative principles unapologetically, and I think he would make for an outstanding president and leader. He is Newt Gingrich without the baggage... Sarah Palin without the makeup... Rand Paul with intelligence.

His ability to carry the conservative message is impeccable and he has proven to be unafraid of Democratic opposition OR Republican opposition for that matter. Of course, the later will pose a huge problem for him, much as it did for Ronald Reagan. We sometimes have to drag moderate republicans kicking and screaming to conservatism. He is as dynamic and bold as Reagan was, unwilling to apologize for his core convictions, ready to take on the challenge of defending his positions against all comers. He would bury Hilary Clinton in a debate on foreign or domestic policy. Hell, he could probably give Hilary advice on baking chocolate chip cookies!

Yes, he has been stigmatized by the left... but what candidate worth their salt hasn't been? Do you think we'll find a candidate the liberal left will be "okay" with? We kinda thought that about McCain and Romney, didn't we? I mean, that WAS the purpose of nominating them, right? They were supposed to "appeal to the middle" and not piss off the left so much... McCain was their "favorite Republican" and Romney was the governor of liberal Massachusetts. Neither man was able to garner a majority of the vote and lost the election to a complete incompetent. It's time to step up to the plate with someone capable of hitting it out of the park. Someone who isn't afraid of liberals, who doesn't care about moderating their views to appeal to the mushy middle, who is prepared to LEAD and do what is in the best interest of the country, both domestically and in matters of foreign policy.. That man is Ted Cruz.

Do you think President Obama has moderated his views and has been apologetic regarding his core convictions?

irrelevant to the thread.

Nope. You said that was the key to your supporting Cruz. Is that really so important to you?

Still irrelevant to the thread.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.
.

An economic crisis that happened under the Republican President. A foreign policy balls up that happened under the Republican President.

You say you want a strong leader. What? Like Bush was? He made a complete hash of it and the president after this suffered, the US suffered, everyone suffered because of it, except seemingly the Republicans who seem to be smiling happy they have the House and Senate back.

What will a strong leader do exactly? Make the economy better? Well the economy's getting better and should be on the rise for the next 10 years. The next president, regardless of whether they are dem or rep (because no one has the balls to vote for a better candidate outside of these parties) will have an easy ride with the economy. It'll be almost impossible for them to mess up. The economy will start to boom, taxes will come in. It'll be like when Clinton was in.
As for foreign policy. I guess the next president has two choices. One, try and invade Iran and continue the Right wing policy of taking out OPEC members who don't support the US. Or they could pull back a bit more like Obama did.
Doesn't seem to be much else, I doubt a president will get elected who would just pull out and leave countries alone. So, foreign policy balls up will happen no matter what, if you get involved in fighting like this, it's unpredictable, it's unstable and things always seem to happen the way the US foreign policy geniuses didn't want it to.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Look! Nobody gives a shit! What a shocker!

 

[Boss]

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.
.

An economic crisis that happened under the Republican President. A foreign policy balls up that happened under the Republican President.

You say you want a strong leader. What? Like Bush was? He made a complete hash of it and the president after this suffered, the US suffered, everyone suffered because of it, except seemingly the Republicans who seem to be smiling happy they have the House and Senate back.

What will a strong leader do exactly? Make the economy better? Well the economy's getting better and should be on the rise for the next 10 years. The next president, regardless of whether they are dem or rep (because no one has the balls to vote for a better candidate outside of these parties) will have an easy ride with the economy. It'll be almost impossible for them to mess up. The economy will start to boom, taxes will come in. It'll be like when Clinton was in.
As for foreign policy. I guess the next president has two choices. One, try and invade Iran and continue the Right wing policy of taking out OPEC members who don't support the US. Or they could pull back a bit more like Obama did.
Doesn't seem to be much else, I doubt a president will get elected who would just pull out and leave countries alone. So, foreign policy balls up will happen no matter what, if you get involved in fighting like this, it's unpredictable, it's unstable and things always seem to happen the way the US foreign policy geniuses didn't want it to.

That's a really hilarious post, you should do a stand up routine! So after 8 years of Obama assing things up even more than they were, you fucktarts are going to trot out the Blame Bush card again? Don't think it's going to play, but okay!

The economy is not getting better. We have more people on Food Stamps than any time in history. Full time employment is almost impossible to find anymore thanks to Obamacare. Has it improved slightly over the past year? Sure, but it pretty much couldn't have gotten any worse. I don't get the feeling that most Americans believe the economy is roaring again.

As for Obama's (& Clinton's) feckless foreign policy which simply IGNORES issues as they arise, this is going to come back to haunt us for a generation or more. At some point, someone is going to have to deal with radical Islam, they aren't going to vanish, they aren't going to work their own problems out, no one else is going to handle it. We're going to need someone with the balls to do what is right regardless of polls. Bush never was that guy, Obama sure as hell ain't that guy. Hilary would be a nightmare.... as she already has been.

But hey look, I didn't toss out Ted Cruz name in hopes of having liberal lefties praise me and think he is an awesome pick. He's like Holy water to your demonic possession. So writhe and wiggle in agony douchebags. I'm not expecting anything less from you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.
.

An economic crisis that happened under the Republican President. A foreign policy balls up that happened under the Republican President.

You say you want a strong leader. What? Like Bush was? He made a complete hash of it and the president after this suffered, the US suffered, everyone suffered because of it, except seemingly the Republicans who seem to be smiling happy they have the House and Senate back.

What will a strong leader do exactly? Make the economy better? Well the economy's getting better and should be on the rise for the next 10 years. The next president, regardless of whether they are dem or rep (because no one has the balls to vote for a better candidate outside of these parties) will have an easy ride with the economy. It'll be almost impossible for them to mess up. The economy will start to boom, taxes will come in. It'll be like when Clinton was in.
As for foreign policy. I guess the next president has two choices. One, try and invade Iran and continue the Right wing policy of taking out OPEC members who don't support the US. Or they could pull back a bit more like Obama did.
Doesn't seem to be much else, I doubt a president will get elected who would just pull out and leave countries alone. So, foreign policy balls up will happen no matter what, if you get involved in fighting like this, it's unpredictable, it's unstable and things always seem to happen the way the US foreign policy geniuses didn't want it to.

That's a really hilarious post, you should do a stand up routine! So after 8 years of Obama assing things up even more than they were, you fucktarts are going to trot out the Blame Bush card again? Don't think it's going to play, but okay!

The economy is not getting better. We have more people on Food Stamps than any time in history. Full time employment is almost impossible to find anymore thanks to Obamacare. Has it improved slightly over the past year? Sure, but it pretty much couldn't have gotten any worse. I don't get the feeling that most Americans believe the economy is roaring again.

As for Obama's (& Clinton's) feckless foreign policy which simply IGNORES issues as they arise, this is going to come back to haunt us for a generation or more. At some point, someone is going to have to deal with radical Islam, they aren't going to vanish, they aren't going to work their own problems out, no one else is going to handle it. We're going to need someone with the balls to do what is right regardless of polls. Bush never was that guy, Obama sure as hell ain't that guy. Hilary would be a nightmare.... as she already has been.

But hey look, I didn't toss out Ted Cruz name in hopes of having liberal lefties praise me and think he is an awesome pick. He's like Holy water to your demonic possession. So writhe and wiggle in agony douchebags. I'm not expecting anything less from you.

So the first thing you do is try and make fun of the fact that Bush actually had an impact on what happened after he left office. It would appear you think the day after Bush left office nothing existed that was impacted by Bush's policies.

Let's see.

Who invaded Iraq?
Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?
Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Can you answer these three questions for me?

As for the economy, here's what has happened in Obama's time with unemployment. Not getting better huh? Actually it's getting better for about 3% of those who are able to work. That's nothing small.

Yep, it's been going DOWN for the last 3 years, here's Bush's. Spot the difference?

It's hardly surprising more people are using food stamps. Due to what has gone on before, and not just Bush, but Clinton, Bush snr and Reagan, oh and don't forget Congress, this economic disaster was always going to happen. Why? Because the politicians in general don't care about the people. They care about their political future, which means getting in lots of money to advertise yourself to death, which means courting big business and doing what they want.

It's also hardly surprising that food stamps take a while to come down. You need people to be in stable employment. However the economic crisis that was so bad for a lot of poor people, many losing their homes which often went to make rich people richer and poor people poorer, means they're struggling to get back on their feet. But you haven't made much in the way of a convincing argument. You haven't shown how food stamp statistics work in economic crises. Someone things lag, they take time to come down. Certainly food stamps aren't always an indicator of how the economy is going.

You seem to put no correlation between what started to happen in 2007/2008 and what is happening now, as if they were in two separate eras and can't possibly affect one another.

As for foreign policy, yes, Obama is reacting to events. He had his main area policy which was to try and stop the US being the country that vilified Islam, that stopped going around invading all the time. However what Bush set in motion with being anti-Islam and Islam being the new common enemy to replace the USSR, and also with the balls up in Iraq especially, Obama doesn't seem able or willing to pull back as much as he wanted to. Part of this is him playing politics. He didn't have to bomb Libya, it was a mistake, I think he bowed to pressure from McCain and the right, and he should have been man enough to say no.

However, be in no doubt that without Bush, Obama wouldn't be in this position. He wouldn't have to be dealing with ISIS and things like this.

To be honest I don't really care which name you throw up. Either he's a man who will do the bidding for big money, or he won't be president. Makes not that much difference.
The difference is this. If a Republican gets in we have more of a chance of seeing US soldiers dying in the Middle East.

 

[Politico]

Still irrelevant to the thread.

Agreed. I think your inability to count is. Obammy has only been the president for six years. As far as who to elect. When we actually know who is running I agree it should be discussed.

 

[Kosh]

However, I believe this election is more important than any previous election of my lifetime because of the state of disrepair created by the current occupant of the White House. We will have endured 8 long years of incompetent leadership... if you can call it leadership. We will have an economic mess on the domestic front as well as alarming turmoil and chaos on the foreign front. And inaugurating Bill Clinton's wife as the first female president, doesn't seem to be an important agenda item for me personally. I think this country has more pressing problems and we need someone who is not afraid to be a strong leader.
.

An economic crisis that happened under the Republican President. A foreign policy balls up that happened under the Republican President.

You say you want a strong leader. What? Like Bush was? He made a complete hash of it and the president after this suffered, the US suffered, everyone suffered because of it, except seemingly the Republicans who seem to be smiling happy they have the House and Senate back.

What will a strong leader do exactly? Make the economy better? Well the economy's getting better and should be on the rise for the next 10 years. The next president, regardless of whether they are dem or rep (because no one has the balls to vote for a better candidate outside of these parties) will have an easy ride with the economy. It'll be almost impossible for them to mess up. The economy will start to boom, taxes will come in. It'll be like when Clinton was in.
As for foreign policy. I guess the next president has two choices. One, try and invade Iran and continue the Right wing policy of taking out OPEC members who don't support the US. Or they could pull back a bit more like Obama did.
Doesn't seem to be much else, I doubt a president will get elected who would just pull out and leave countries alone. So, foreign policy balls up will happen no matter what, if you get involved in fighting like this, it's unpredictable, it's unstable and things always seem to happen the way the US foreign policy geniuses didn't want it to.

That's a really hilarious post, you should do a stand up routine! So after 8 years of Obama assing things up even more than they were, you fucktarts are going to trot out the Blame Bush card again? Don't think it's going to play, but okay!

The economy is not getting better. We have more people on Food Stamps than any time in history. Full time employment is almost impossible to find anymore thanks to Obamacare. Has it improved slightly over the past year? Sure, but it pretty much couldn't have gotten any worse. I don't get the feeling that most Americans believe the economy is roaring again.

As for Obama's (& Clinton's) feckless foreign policy which simply IGNORES issues as they arise, this is going to come back to haunt us for a generation or more. At some point, someone is going to have to deal with radical Islam, they aren't going to vanish, they aren't going to work their own problems out, no one else is going to handle it. We're going to need someone with the balls to do what is right regardless of polls. Bush never was that guy, Obama sure as hell ain't that guy. Hilary would be a nightmare.... as she already has been.

But hey look, I didn't toss out Ted Cruz name in hopes of having liberal lefties praise me and think he is an awesome pick. He's like Holy water to your demonic possession. So writhe and wiggle in agony douchebags. I'm not expecting anything less from you.

So the first thing you do is try and make fun of the fact that Bush actually had an impact on what happened after he left office. It would appear you think the day after Bush left office nothing existed that was impacted by Bush's policies.

Let's see.

Who invaded Iraq?
Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?
Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Can you answer these three questions for me?

As for the economy, here's what has happened in Obama's time with unemployment. Not getting better huh? Actually it's getting better for about 3% of those who are able to work. That's nothing small.

Yep, it's been going DOWN for the last 3 years, here's Bush's. Spot the difference?

It's hardly surprising more people are using food stamps. Due to what has gone on before, and not just Bush, but Clinton, Bush snr and Reagan, oh and don't forget Congress, this economic disaster was always going to happen. Why? Because the politicians in general don't care about the people. They care about their political future, which means getting in lots of money to advertise yourself to death, which means courting big business and doing what they want.

It's also hardly surprising that food stamps take a while to come down. You need people to be in stable employment. However the economic crisis that was so bad for a lot of poor people, many losing their homes which often went to make rich people richer and poor people poorer, means they're struggling to get back on their feet. But you haven't made much in the way of a convincing argument. You haven't shown how food stamp statistics work in economic crises. Someone things lag, they take time to come down. Certainly food stamps aren't always an indicator of how the economy is going.

You seem to put no correlation between what started to happen in 2007/2008 and what is happening now, as if they were in two separate eras and can't possibly affect one another.

As for foreign policy, yes, Obama is reacting to events. He had his main area policy which was to try and stop the US being the country that vilified Islam, that stopped going around invading all the time. However what Bush set in motion with being anti-Islam and Islam being the new common enemy to replace the USSR, and also with the balls up in Iraq especially, Obama doesn't seem able or willing to pull back as much as he wanted to. Part of this is him playing politics. He didn't have to bomb Libya, it was a mistake, I think he bowed to pressure from McCain and the right, and he should have been man enough to say no.

However, be in no doubt that without Bush, Obama wouldn't be in this position. He wouldn't have to be dealing with ISIS and things like this.

To be honest I don't really care which name you throw up. Either he's a man who will do the bidding for big money, or he won't be president. Makes not that much difference.
The difference is this. If a Republican gets in we have more of a chance of seeing US soldiers dying in the Middle East.

And there it is the far left programmed propaganda rolls out without hesitation..

Drone on far left poster, drone on....

 

[Boss]

So the first thing you do is try and make fun of the fact that Bush actually had an impact on what happened after he left office. It would appear you think the day after Bush left office nothing existed that was impacted by Bush's policies.

Let's see.

Who invaded Iraq?
Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?
Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Who invaded Iraq?

We did. Congress authorized the use of military force an we carried out the 1998 foreign policy directive of Bill Clinton which was also authorized by Congress.

Who caused there to be a huge power vacuum?

Liberals who turned Iraq into Little Vietnam for political purposes, causing us to prematurely withdraw and allow the unstable government to fall into the hands of radicals.

Who was in charge when the economy went belly up?

Bush. And so the argument was made that we should elect Obama to fix the problems. After two terms, nothing much has been done and liberals are still blaming everything on Bush.

As for the economy, here's what has happened in Obama's time with unemployment. Not getting better huh? Actually it's getting better for about 3% of those who are able to work. That's nothing small.

Yep, it's been going DOWN for the last 3 years, here's Bush's. Spot the difference?

Millions of Americans are not even counted in these numbers because they have exhausted unemployment benefits and no long show up as part of the statistic. We lost millions of decent paying jobs and replaced them will low-wage or part time jobs.

It's hardly surprising more people are using food stamps. Due to what has gone on before, and not just Bush, but Clinton, Bush snr and Reagan, oh and don't forget Congress, this economic disaster was always going to happen. Why? Because the politicians in general don't care about the people. They care about their political future, which means getting in lots of money to advertise yourself to death, which means courting big business and doing what they want.

It's also hardly surprising that food stamps take a while to come down. You need people to be in stable employment. However the economic crisis that was so bad for a lot of poor people, many losing their homes which often went to make rich people richer and poor people poorer, means they're struggling to get back on their feet. But you haven't made much in the way of a convincing argument. You haven't shown how food stamp statistics work in economic crises. Someone things lag, they take time to come down. Certainly food stamps aren't always an indicator of how the economy is going.

*SIGH* AGAIN.... We elected Obama to FIX the problems! You made the argument that we shouldn't elect a Republican because things would remain the same. Remember Hope and Change? Now suddenly, it is not Obama's fault, it made no difference who we elected because all our problems are the fault of politicians past. This is clearly the problem of the policy which turns around and points to the past in cynical blame. So how long do we keep looking backward and blaming our problems on the past instead of tackling the problems and making the future better?

You seem to put no correlation between what started to happen in 2007/2008 and what is happening now, as if they were in two separate eras and can't possibly affect one another.

We had an election in 2008... A historic election! We were promised the Democrat equivalent to "Morning in America" and yet we're still in the middle of the Nightmare of Obama! And ALL you have to say for yourselves is "Bush is Bad! ---It's all Bush's fault!"

It seems to me we need to decide if we want REAL change and improvement, or do we want to go through another 4 years of it being all Bush's fault? The looking back and blaming the past doesn't seem to be doing a thing for our future.

As for foreign policy, yes, Obama is reacting to events. He had his main area policy which was to try and stop the US being the country that vilified Islam, that stopped going around invading all the time. However what Bush set in motion with being anti-Islam and Islam being the new common enemy to replace the USSR, and also with the balls up in Iraq especially, Obama doesn't seem able or willing to pull back as much as he wanted to. Part of this is him playing politics. He didn't have to bomb Libya, it was a mistake, I think he bowed to pressure from McCain and the right, and he should have been man enough to say no.

However, be in no doubt that without Bush, Obama wouldn't be in this position. He wouldn't have to be dealing with ISIS and things like this.

AGAIN... The REASON we have ISIS is because we abandoned the War on Terror and the Bush Doctrine. Instead of doing what should have been done and wiping these motherfuckers off the planet, we balked, we turned and ran away, we abandoned the resistance forces and adopted a new liberal policy which has FAILED! We now have a bigger problem on our hands and it's not going to get better.

To be honest I don't really care which name you throw up. Either he's a man who will do the bidding for big money, or he won't be president. Makes not that much difference.
The difference is this. If a Republican gets in we have more of a chance of seeing US soldiers dying in the Middle East.

To be honest, you've had your turn at bat and you've failed. US soldiers are going to die in the Middle East, and MORE are going to die now than there would have been 6-8 years ago. If we continue to ignore the inevitable, that number is going to increase even more when we eventually have to confront this threat.

Of all the potential candidates I see on the horizon, both Republican and Democrat, the ONLY man who has the balls to do what has to be done in spite of polls and public opinion is Ted Cruz. Like him or not, the man stands for his principles and doesn't back down.

 

[frigidweirdo]

And there it is the far left programmed propaganda rolls out without hesitation..

Drone on far left poster, drone on....

Why do you come on a debate board to then simply dismiss anything which you think is wrong? You could at least make an effort, but no, you just knock anything.

You think you're right. If you're so right then you would be able to put it down in words, back it up with a decent argument.

So what are we left with? Nothing, just a waste of frigging time.

 

[Kosh]

And there it is the far left programmed propaganda rolls out without hesitation..

Drone on far left poster, drone on....

Why do you come on a debate board to then simply dismiss anything which you think is wrong? You could at least make an effort, but no, you just knock anything.

You think you're right. If you're so right then you would be able to put it down in words, back it up with a decent argument.

So what are we left with? Nothing, just a waste of frigging time.

Oh my the far left posts known bunk then wants others to prove them wrong!

See you can not debate a far left programmed drone as they can never admit when they are wrong and they will always post debunked info and expect others to prove them wrong!

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

The far left is a waste of time, so just point out their propaganda and move on.. Much easier!

Can not debate with a programmed far left drone, not possible..

 

[zeke]

You think you're right. If you're so right then you would be able to put it down in words, back it up with a decent argument.

Kosh? Put up a decent argument? Ain't happenin. He/she's an idiot and boss is it's mentor. Good luck.

 

[zeke]

Also this is a "debate" board as in a debate you can not prove a negative..

Again you prove how stupid you are. A "debate" board? You got to be kidding. You think just making some bullshit statement makes a "debate"? Good god.

 

[Mac1958]

.

If Cruz gets the nomination the Thank You cards will pour in from Democrats from coast to coast.

This would be just the gift the vulnerable Democrats need right now.

.