US Politics Mega-thread - Page 844

On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
As good as Bush was on terrorism

On February 04 2014 15:35 Sub40APM wrote:
...Donald Trump? Really?

On February 04 2014 16:15 nunez wrote:


yes, it's true because 9/11.

On February 04 2014 16:19 Danglars wrote:
Gore would've shot a couple cruise missiles into sand factories and then gotten back to global warming.

On February 04 2014 14:07 Sub40APM wrote:

oh okay. so sometimes worthless pieces of paper can have worth beyond having a big army then? are there other reasons worthless pieces of paper can be worth something, beyond being 'very hard to invade' position?

On February 04 2014 16:28 nunez wrote:


sure, i get it... operation eagle claw, never again.

On February 04 2014 16:41 Danglars wrote:
Try again, that was Carter's helicopters, not cruise missiles. But, sure, if you want to bring up another guy I wouldn't trust with fighting terrorism, Jimmy Carter is up there too.

On February 04 2014 16:56 nunez wrote:

try again, those were united states navy helicopters, not carter's...

On February 04 2014 15:33 Danglars wrote:
Well, Seb40EPM, everybody who ran or said they were considering running in 2012 minus Mitt Romney (unless he changes his mind) and Cain. It's not the conservative party, it's the Republican party, my preferred candidates are the most conservative I hold any hope for.

Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.

I couldn't get behind a Christie, or a Huckabee, or many of the rest of possibilities I didn't mention. As good as Bush was on terrorism, he was a big government type that grew it and paved the way for some of Obama's excesses; I don't want another Bush. Christie's opposition to Obamacare was hardly present and that issue remains big in my mind.

Of course if Coolidge and Reagan are any indication, we should be due another conservative guy I REALLY like in 2030. I hope I'm not voting for "the other guy" sometime before then.

Don't drag me back in haha, I hear from Introvert you already hashed and rehashed it all so I'm backing out. I would necessarily defend my interpretation and re-issue what I find wrong with yours, and here I would be violating your own advice ... for I do feel very comfortable as well with my position.

On February 04 2014 16:19 Danglars wrote:
Gore would've shot a couple cruise missiles into sand factories and then gotten back to global warming.

On February 04 2014 17:23 Danglars wrote:
I'm sure the commander in chief of all armed forces of the United States wasn't the president back then. If you weren't trolling, I would have some sad epithets to the state of Germany's education situation going in here. This has gone on far enough for a missed reference, so you can go on and troll another. I promise not to quote half of one sentence of your next serious post to respond to.

On February 04 2014 17:44 FallDownMarigold wrote:


...would've been much much better than half-assing it into Afghanistan before prematurely pulling that plug in order to invade Iraq, half-assed, only to leave to return to the 1st state, now worse off, resulting in today: both places fucked worse than before, more global instability stemming from a strengthened hotbed for extremism, pakistan, a nuclear state, growing less secure, etc. etc.

Bush #1 on terrorism yeehaw

On February 04 2014 16:17 Danglars wrote:
It's only half a troll pick. If he was on the ticket against Biden or against Clinton, hell yeah. He did the birther bit, which was always kookooville, major point against. He has run a successful business from a management position ... in America ... so leagues ahead of Obama & Bill Clinton. Chances of advocating for pro-business legislation, a reduction in the hurtful regulations, and the lack of anti-business legislation? Good.

I haven't supported him in any other primary, and he'd lose out to a lot more higher on my list, but w/e. He's there. He'd be preferable to all the top Democratic contenders at this time.

On February 04 2014 17:41 Introvert wrote:



I like your choices, but then again who wouldn't I vote for instead of Hillary? It's kind of tainting the whole thing...

I'm kind of surprised, it would not have amazed me to find out I was the only one who would vote for Palin if it came down to it...
Paul Ryan has proven he's soft on some things (* cough* immigration *cough*), so I'd take Cruz or Paul before him.

Despite the conventional wisdom in this thread, I think either of them has a good shot at wining. Recall, everyone said Reagan "couldn't win", "look at what happened to Goldwater", etc. Good parallels too, Reagan made the establishment very angry when he ran in a primary against Ford. He lost, but it was hardly by a large margin (it was decent, but for a sitting president?)...I think they even blamed him for Ford's loss by dragging out the primary. Some interesting modern parallels can be made.

Cuccinelli would be good, but he lost the governors race, I don't think we'll see him this time.

Same- Christie and Huckabee are dead last.

We have people as least as conservative as Reagan and maybe even Coolidge now, and I think if Obamacare is bad enough, we'll get a conservative before 2030. I hope.




I think I debated it with Roe? Or was it that other guy, DoubleReed? Anyway, it's been hashed out, though at the slightest prompting I would take it up again. I can't help it.

On February 04 2014 18:01 Sub40APM wrote:

I meant more on the theme of who do you think it will be, not who would you vote for.
I think you have to try really really hard to think there will be a Reagan moment -- at the end of the day he was governor of California not a Southern state.

On February 04 2014 18:20 Introvert wrote:



It will be interesting to see who the establishment will pick if Christie doesn't work. It might be Huckabee.

In terms of Conservatives- Cruz is running, as is Rand. We may see Walker as well. I think Ryan will be in it. I don't think Rubio will...his name was there for a while, but after the immigration debacle he lost a lot of pull. He might be the establishment choice if it comes down to it (to appease the Tea Party), but I think he's a little down the line. Jindal may run too. It's really early, so it's hard to tell. I'm not an expert so I look for the obvious like Christie, Paul, and Cruz.

Honestly, I can only say that 3 or 4 are for sure running right now.

As to the Reagan comment, I would just say that it's hard to know. He really was the last time the establishment was pushed this hard, so that's the main similarity I see. That and the general down feeling in the country.

Maybe it's because it's late, but I don't see what that last bit has to do with anything. Anyone can win, look at Obama. A one term senator plucked from obscurity. Cruz and Paul are not governors either, they are in similar positions to the one Obama was in. They don't need to be a high profile governor, they've already made their mark.

I think a "Reagan moment" is not for sure, but it is possible.

Against a Biden or Clinton, I'd support a Cruz, Paul (Rand), Trump, Ryan, Gingrich. Longest of the long shots Bolton, Ben Carson, Huntsman, DeMint. If they decided to run, Cuccinelli, Issa, Jindal, Palin (Flame On!), Rubio, Walker, West, Bachmann.