What Does The Total & Complete Repudiation of Jeb Bush Mean?

[saveliberty]

By the same token how can a socialist be this close to winning the Democrat nod with a supposed great candidate like Hillary? I see it as a rejection of established Democratic leadership too.

 

[MarcATL]

Well, I can't prove that you're aren't, but I DO know that many many Republicans have professed to be Independent, Conservative, practically anything BUT Republican after GWB got done with the party. I suspect that you are, but I'll have to take your word for it until further notice.

Again, not meaning to attack you, but I don't really care what label you want to put on me. You'd be smart to take my word for it.

It seems you and others believe George Bush WAS the Republican party, just as Obama or Hillary Clinton ARE the Democratic Party. Each party has a charter, a declaration of what they are / stand for. None of the parties (GOP or DNC) have reflected those for quite a while. Loyalties have shifted from what parties are supposed to be to the politicians who claim to be the leaders. Obama and Bernie sanders are NOT the Democratic party. Progressive Liberals hijacked / took over the party just as surely as Bush, McConnell, and Boehner did the GOP.

Such rabid partisan loyalty to a party or to an individual, the likes that we see now, over loyalty and seeking the best for the country is what has gotten us in the shape we are in now. Going into Iraq was a wrong move, and there is much to fault Bush for; however, the same rabid partisans who fault Bush and still seek 'his blood' are the same ones rabidly defending a Democrats for so incompetently failing at her job that she got 4 Americans needlessly killed. The woman LAUGHED at the death of a US Ambassador and declared she thought his more than 600 pleas for more security was a JOKE. THAT is F*ED UP and IN-EXCUSEABLE!

I only point that out to demonstrate how such rabid partisan division has been allowed to grow to the point that out of pure un-adultered partisan loyalty to one party people can actually defend such action! You know damn-well that if a Republican had done this the Left would APPROPRIATELY be calling for their head!

Such rabid party-1st loyalty, above even the country's best interest, is one of the biggest threats, IMO, we face today as a nation. It is out of control. So NO, I do not consider myself to be a Republican or a Democrat or any other party 1st.

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

Note how the American public didn't even fall for that claptrap. Hence, despite 4 or more years of FOXNEWS and the rightwing media incessantly pushing out the meme that Hillary got them killed, no one, but rabid party loyalist bought it.

That you are pushing that meme furthers my suspicion that you are a rightwing Republican party loyalist. But you COULD be an independent that happens to push what Republican Party loyalist push in that regard.

I suppose anything is possible.

 

[easyt65]

By the same token how can a socialist be this close to winning the Democrat nod with a supposed great candidate like Hillary? I see it as a rejection of established Democratic leadership too.

I see it as a combination of a rejection of both Establishment Democratic party and of a severely flawed, scandal-plagued, un-trustworthy individual. (If a GOP member had the same history and story as Hillary I would be saying the same things and be pulling for them to be ousted from the race.)

 

[easyt65]

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the life of Ambassador Stevens. When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi due to the threats of pending attack on 9/11/12 Hillary Clinton failed to exercise her authority and responsibility to pull him out as well. She did not. Even after 2 terrorist attacks on his compound she refused to pull him out.

Leadership requires making decision, making the tough calls and doing what is necessary to keep those entrusted to you safe. She did not do that!

The fact that the State Department hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to protect a US Ambassador is inexcusable and borderline treason.

The fact that she, as she claims, did not know about Stevens' more than 600 pleas for additional security, then her laughing about his death under oath and claiming she thought those requests were a JOKE, a product of his 'sense of humor' is egregious.

Hillary Clinton FAILED as Secretary of State. She FAILED Ambassador Stevens. Her incompetence, inability to make the necessary decision to keep Americans out of harm's way resulted in the NEEDLESS death of 4 Americans.

Do I believe she intentionally did so. Of course not; however, Obama's message that re-election year was that the War on Terror was over and Al Qaeida was on the run. I believe they did not order Stevens out because doing so would signal that his claim about Al Qaeida and the war on terror was not true. I believe they rolled the dice, gambled with Stevens' life, and in the end HE lost!

 

[sealybobo]

And they made two beautiful daughters but even a troll like Cruz can do that.

This is a perfect example of the pure rabid partisan HATRED I am talking about, for no other reason than Cruz does not adhere to what Liberals believe and dares to hold a differing opinion. Good grief...

I think he wants to hurt me financially. What better reason to hate him and you? I especially don't like foreign dicks like Canadian Cruz with the Cuban daddy. No thank you.

And its not just me. He's the most hated man in Washington.

The question is why do you defend him? You act like you know him better than I do.

 

[sealybobo]

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the life of Ambassador Stevens. When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi due to the threats of pending attack on 9/11/12 Hillary Clinton failed to exercise her authority and responsibility to pull him out as well. She did not. Even after 2 terrorist attacks on his compound she refused to pull him out.

Leadership requires making decision, making the tough calls and doing what is necessary to keep those entrusted to you safe. She did not do that!

The fact that the State Department hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to protect a US Ambassador is inexcusable and borderline treason.

The fact that she, as she claims, did not know about Stevens' more than 600 pleas for additional security, then her laughing about his death under oath and claiming she thought those requests were a JOKE, a product of his 'sense of humor' is egregious.

Hillary Clinton FAILED as Secretary of State. She FAILED Ambassador Stevens. Her incompetence, inability to make the necessary decision to keep Americans out of harm's way resulted in the NEEDLESS death of 4 Americans.

Do I believe she intentionally did so. Of course not; however, Obama's message that re-election year was that the War on Terror was over and Al Qaeida was on the run. I believe they did not order Stevens out because doing so would signal that his claim about Al Qaeida and the war on terror was not true. I believe they rolled the dice, gambled with Stevens' life, and in the end HE lost!

Yet not a peep from you then.

 

[MarcATL]

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the life of Ambassador Stevens. When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi due to the threats of pending attack on 9/11/12 Hillary Clinton failed to exercise her authority and responsibility to pull him out as well. She did not. Even after 2 terrorist attacks on his compound she refused to pull him out.

Leadership requires making decision, making the tough calls and doing what is necessary to keep those entrusted to you safe. She did not do that!

The fact that the State Department hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to protect a US Ambassador is inexcusable and borderline treason.

The fact that she, as she claims, did not know about Stevens' more than 600 pleas for additional security, then her laughing about his death under oath and claiming she thought those requests were a JOKE, a product of his 'sense of humor' is egregious.

Hillary Clinton FAILED as Secretary of State. She FAILED Ambassador Stevens. Her incompetence, inability to make the necessary decision to keep Americans out of harm's way resulted in the NEEDLESS death of 4 Americans.

Do I believe she intentionally did so. Of course not; however, Obama's message that re-election year was that the War on Terror was over and Al Qaeida was on the run. I believe they did not order Stevens out because doing so would signal that his claim about Al Qaeida and the war on terror was not true. I believe they rolled the dice, gambled with Stevens' life, and in the end HE lost!

Didn't Stevens had a role to play? If so, what was his role sir?

 

[MarcATL]

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the life of Ambassador Stevens. When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi due to the threats of pending attack on 9/11/12 Hillary Clinton failed to exercise her authority and responsibility to pull him out as well. She did not. Even after 2 terrorist attacks on his compound she refused to pull him out.

Leadership requires making decision, making the tough calls and doing what is necessary to keep those entrusted to you safe. She did not do that!

The fact that the State Department hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to protect a US Ambassador is inexcusable and borderline treason.

The fact that she, as she claims, did not know about Stevens' more than 600 pleas for additional security, then her laughing about his death under oath and claiming she thought those requests were a JOKE, a product of his 'sense of humor' is egregious.

Hillary Clinton FAILED as Secretary of State. She FAILED Ambassador Stevens. Her incompetence, inability to make the necessary decision to keep Americans out of harm's way resulted in the NEEDLESS death of 4 Americans.

Do I believe she intentionally did so. Of course not; however, Obama's message that re-election year was that the War on Terror was over and Al Qaeida was on the run. I believe they did not order Stevens out because doing so would signal that his claim about Al Qaeida and the war on terror was not true. I believe they rolled the dice, gambled with Stevens' life, and in the end HE lost!

Yet not a peep from you then.

easyt65 waiting for your response on this one.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Well, I can't prove that you're aren't, but I DO know that many many Republicans have professed to be Independent, Conservative, practically anything BUT Republican after GWB got done with the party. I suspect that you are, but I'll have to take your word for it until further notice.

Again, not meaning to attack you, but I don't really care what label you want to put on me. You'd be smart to take my word for it.

It seems you and others believe George Bush WAS the Republican party, just as Obama or Hillary Clinton ARE the Democratic Party. Each party has a charter, a declaration of what they are / stand for. None of the parties (GOP or DNC) have reflected those for quite a while. Loyalties have shifted from what parties are supposed to be to the politicians who claim to be the leaders. Obama and Bernie sanders are NOT the Democratic party. Progressive Liberals hijacked / took over the party just as surely as Bush, McConnell, and Boehner did the GOP.

Such rabid partisan loyalty to a party or to an individual, the likes that we see now, over loyalty and seeking the best for the country is what has gotten us in the shape we are in now. Going into Iraq was a wrong move, and there is much to fault Bush for; however, the same rabid partisans who fault Bush and still seek 'his blood' are the same ones rabidly defending a Democrats for so incompetently failing at her job that she got 4 Americans needlessly killed. The woman LAUGHED at the death of a US Ambassador and declared she thought his more than 600 pleas for more security was a JOKE. THAT is F*ED UP and IN-EXCUSEABLE!

I only point that out to demonstrate how such rabid partisan division has been allowed to grow to the point that out of pure un-adultered partisan loyalty to one party people can actually defend such action! You know damn-well that if a Republican had done this the Left would APPROPRIATELY be calling for their head!

Such rabid party-1st loyalty, above even the country's best interest, is one of the biggest threats, IMO, we face today as a nation. It is out of control. So NO, I do not consider myself to be a Republican or a Democrat or any other party 1st.

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

Note how the American public didn't even fall for that claptrap. Hence, despite 4 or more years of FOXNEWS and the rightwing media incessantly pushing out the meme that Hillary got them killed, no one, but rabid party loyalist bought it.

That you are pushing that meme furthers my suspicion that you are a rightwing Republican party loyalist. But you COULD be an independent that happens to push what Republican Party loyalist push in that regard.

I suppose anything is possible.

Staffer: Stevens Wanted Libya Security

Security Team Commander Says Ambassador Stevens Wanted His Team to Stay in Libya Past August

First off this is ABC news not Faux, so your argument fails there. Second is that Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked the State Department(the vagina candidate) for more security because there were instances of uprisings going on not only in Libya but Egypt too. But since this was an election year and the Messiah Obama was running on Osama is dead and Al Qaeda is on the run, any beefing up of security to protect Chris would look bad for the President. But what I find truly amazing how stupid you liberals are is what the vagina candidate said under oath.
"AT THIS POINT WHAT DIFERENCE DOES IT MAKE,(my words which were said) THAT AMBASSADOR STEVENS was executed along with 3 other Americans left there to defend Chris for 8 hours, and no help sent to rescue them.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This is where you lose me, when you BLAME Hillary for the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible for the life of Ambassador Stevens. When every other nation pulled their people out of Benghazi due to the threats of pending attack on 9/11/12 Hillary Clinton failed to exercise her authority and responsibility to pull him out as well. She did not. Even after 2 terrorist attacks on his compound she refused to pull him out.

Leadership requires making decision, making the tough calls and doing what is necessary to keep those entrusted to you safe. She did not do that!

The fact that the State Department hired an Al Qaeida-associated militia to protect a US Ambassador is inexcusable and borderline treason.

The fact that she, as she claims, did not know about Stevens' more than 600 pleas for additional security, then her laughing about his death under oath and claiming she thought those requests were a JOKE, a product of his 'sense of humor' is egregious.

Hillary Clinton FAILED as Secretary of State. She FAILED Ambassador Stevens. Her incompetence, inability to make the necessary decision to keep Americans out of harm's way resulted in the NEEDLESS death of 4 Americans.

Do I believe she intentionally did so. Of course not; however, Obama's message that re-election year was that the War on Terror was over and Al Qaeida was on the run. I believe they did not order Stevens out because doing so would signal that his claim about Al Qaeida and the war on terror was not true. I believe they rolled the dice, gambled with Stevens' life, and in the end HE lost!

Didn't Stevens had a role to play? If so, what was his role sir?

It wasn't to die, or is that the way liberal fascists follow Der Fuhrer? No questions asked, do or die?
How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job

3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse. Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others. This is why you will find many very "successful" sociopaths in high levels of government, in any nation.

This is why the vagina candidate could laugh when she was asked about the murder of Chris Stevens.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If you happened to be selected to be an Ambassador to a country in the Middle East, and Hillary Rodham Clinton(the vagina candidate) said she would watch your back, would you go?



How do you know a liberal is lying? Their mouth is open...

 

[easyt65]

waiting for your response on this one.

Some (dumbass) Democrats claim Bush could have prevented 9/11/01. That's total BS, and ignores the fact that planning for 9/11/12 was conducted during Clinton's time in office, while he was playing 'Hide the Cigar'.

Did some attacks happen during Bush's watch? Absolutely? Did he try to hide them and lie about them? No.

Obama and Hillary KNEW about the threat of attack AND the fact that an Al Qaeida leader had called for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for an Al Qaeida leader from Benghazi having been killed in a drone strike earlier. They had the same Intel the other countries had and used to pull their people out of Benghazi prior to 9/11/12/ Obama and Hillary did NOT do so and got Stevens needlessly killed.

Did Bush blame a video? No.

Did Bush lie to the American people about those attacks? No.

Did he send his people armed with lies on Sunday Talk Shows to push a lie? No.

Did he call any grieving family members liars? No.

Did he go before the U.N. after the attack and falsely blame a video? No.

Did he declare to the Islamic extremists and Muslims, after falsely blaming a video, 'The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'?! No.
- What he DID do was to declare he would bring those responsible for 9/11/01 to Justice and ensure there was no safe haven in the world for terrorists. Under Obama, he helped the Muslim Brotherhood take over the govt in Egypt, helped hand Libya over to Al Qeaida, supplied / armed / trained / protected ISIS and allowed them to flow freely into Iraq and take over much of the country our military had liberated at great cost. When Russia and France were flying missions to bomb ISIS Obama was having leaflets dropped to warn the terrorists the attacks were coming...that's know as 'treason' by many.

Were there any successful terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11/01? No.
There have been at least 5 under Obama, the last one perpetrated by the terrorist the Obama administration gave a visa to and brought into the country. FAIL!

This is the rabid partisanship I have been talking about. You are trying so hard to ignore what has been done under the CURRENT President by trying to drag up an EX-President from almost a decade ago.

Bush was not close to perfect. He made mistakes. People died...but the liberals can't admit to that about Obama and Hillary. Not one damn bit. It's amazing.

 

[MarcATL]

waiting for your response on this one.

Some (dumbass) Democrats claim Bush could have prevented 9/11/01. That's total BS, and ignores the fact that planning for 9/11/12 was conducted during Clinton's time in office, while he was playing 'Hide the Cigar'.

Did some attacks happen during Bush's watch? Absolutely? Did he try to hide them and lie about them? No.

Obama and Hillary KNEW about the threat of attack AND the fact that an Al Qaeida leader had called for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for an Al Qaeida leader from Benghazi having been killed in a drone strike earlier. They had the same Intel the other countries had and used to pull their people out of Benghazi prior to 9/11/12/ Obama and Hillary did NOT do so and got Stevens needlessly killed.

Did Bush blame a video? No.

Did Bush lie to the American people about those attacks? No.

Did he send his people armed with lies on Sunday Talk Shows to push a lie? No.

Did he call any grieving family members liars? No.

Did he go before the U.N. after the attack and falsely blame a video? No.

Did he declare to the Islamic extremists and Muslims, after falsely blaming a video, 'The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'?! No.
- What he DID do was to declare he would bring those responsible for 9/11/01 to Justice and ensure there was no safe haven in the world for terrorists. Under Obama, he helped the Muslim Brotherhood take over the govt in Egypt, helped hand Libya over to Al Qeaida, supplied / armed / trained / protected ISIS and allowed them to flow freely into Iraq and take over much of the country our military had liberated at great cost. When Russia and France were flying missions to bomb ISIS Obama was having leaflets dropped to warn the terrorists the attacks were coming...that's know as 'treason' by many.

Were there any successful terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11/01? No.
There have been at least 5 under Obama, the last one perpetrated by the terrorist the Obama administration gave a visa to and brought into the country. FAIL!

This is the rabid partisanship I have been talking about. You are trying so hard to ignore what has been done under the CURRENT President by trying to drag up an EX-President from almost a decade ago.

Bush was not close to perfect. He made mistakes. People died...but the liberals can't admit to that about Obama and Hillary. Not one damn bit. It's amazing.

WoW!!

You're listing ALL the far rightwing talking points book, chapter and verse.

- Hostility to Hillary Clinton. Check.
- Hostility to Bill Clinton. Check.
- Hostility to liberals. Check.
- Giving Republicans a pass. Check.

You, sir, are no independent.

 

[BluesLegend]

By the same token how can a socialist be this close to winning the Democrat nod with a supposed great candidate like Hillary? I see it as a rejection of established Democratic leadership too.

Democratic party leaders have been spewing socialist rhetoric for decades to win votes. Then to their horror a big portion of the Democratic party bought into the nonsense and turned socialist lmao!
.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Funny how the

waiting for your response on this one.

Some (dumbass) Democrats claim Bush could have prevented 9/11/01. That's total BS, and ignores the fact that planning for 9/11/12 was conducted during Clinton's time in office, while he was playing 'Hide the Cigar'.

Did some attacks happen during Bush's watch? Absolutely? Did he try to hide them and lie about them? No.

Obama and Hillary KNEW about the threat of attack AND the fact that an Al Qaeida leader had called for the assassination of Stevens in retaliation for an Al Qaeida leader from Benghazi having been killed in a drone strike earlier. They had the same Intel the other countries had and used to pull their people out of Benghazi prior to 9/11/12/ Obama and Hillary did NOT do so and got Stevens needlessly killed.

Did Bush blame a video? No.

Did Bush lie to the American people about those attacks? No.

Did he send his people armed with lies on Sunday Talk Shows to push a lie? No.

Did he call any grieving family members liars? No.

Did he go before the U.N. after the attack and falsely blame a video? No.

Did he declare to the Islamic extremists and Muslims, after falsely blaming a video, 'The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam'?! No.
- What he DID do was to declare he would bring those responsible for 9/11/01 to Justice and ensure there was no safe haven in the world for terrorists. Under Obama, he helped the Muslim Brotherhood take over the govt in Egypt, helped hand Libya over to Al Qeaida, supplied / armed / trained / protected ISIS and allowed them to flow freely into Iraq and take over much of the country our military had liberated at great cost. When Russia and France were flying missions to bomb ISIS Obama was having leaflets dropped to warn the terrorists the attacks were coming...that's know as 'treason' by many.

Were there any successful terrorist attacks on US soil after 9/11/01? No.
There have been at least 5 under Obama, the last one perpetrated by the terrorist the Obama administration gave a visa to and brought into the country. FAIL!

This is the rabid partisanship I have been talking about. You are trying so hard to ignore what has been done under the CURRENT President by trying to drag up an EX-President from almost a decade ago.

Bush was not close to perfect. He made mistakes. People died...but the liberals can't admit to that about Obama and Hillary. Not one damn bit. It's amazing.

WoW!!

You're listing ALL the far rightwing talking points book, chapter and verse.

- Hostility to Hillary Clinton. Check.
- Hostility to Bill Clinton. Check.
- Hostility to liberals. Check.
- Giving Republicans a pass. Check.

You, sir, are no independent.

To a liberal, TRUTH is considered Right wing talking points. So Lies are considered Left wing talking points?

 

[bendog]

From my analysis it means that the total Bush meme, about "Bush kept us safe" which was used as a way to proport that his Administration was successful, is totally, completely and finally put to rest.

Case in point, T-Rump, went to South Carolina, the known and stated Bush stronghold and said to a crowded room full of Republicans that Bush DID NOT keep us safe. Moreover, he stated that they KNEW that there were no weapons of mass destruction, and they STILL waged for war, that was a complete and total disaster.

Here's the interesting thing about that. The day after, most to all Republican and right-wing pundits were bashing Trump with the response that it was a Democrat thing to say, or a left-wing talking point, NOT that it was false or a lie, but that it was a left-wing talking point. That argument in itself speaks volumes.

I watched "Morning Joe's" Joe Scarborough repeat that sentiment multiple times on his show the morning after and I was just stunned how him and people like him kept saying that. I listened to Tom Sullivan that day and he said the same thing. I've been tweeting and being re tweeted by Sullivan for months and I've stated to him that the Republicans are going to hang by that meme and sentiment that "Bush kept us safe" because it's a lie and they haven't dealt with that lie, and until they do, they will continue to falter. He tepidly agreed, but didn't outright state it.

Here comes Trump stating what even establishment Democrats didn't have the balls to say, to the establishment Republicans face. They all swore he was going to go down in South Carolina. Turns out that he won and he won DECISIVELY despite of and perhaps because of his statements denouncing the Bush lie.

Now you've all seen me stating the same exact thing T-Rump said on here for years, and just as the establishment response, all the USMB RWers respond with sentiments that it's just a far left thing to say. Well it's not, it never has been, the only partisan response is the response that DEFENDS the Bush lies lo these many years.

I thank God for Trump for being the one to FINALLY bring this lie to a screeching halt. Despite what the defenders will say, it's a lie, because the Bush name is now mud, and this is by YOUR OWN standards, the fact that his brother has, had, and never had a change in hell to make it this election cycle.

Now we have a man who went down in a STUNNINGLY embarrassing way ending his career in total defeat a and collapse. Here's what the Young Turks had to say about it...



I say good riddance to bad rubbish. What say you?

He's past his shelf life. Iraq ended the Reagan brand. The bailout ended the DLC brand.

We're in a new time where old rules about party alliegiences don't apply .... beyond The gop will probably never in the next two decades get a maj of latinos and blacks will cont becoming a less important % of the electorate.