Donald Trump watch

George Bush (the original) was an incredibly smart and great president. 10000000000000x smarter and more evolved than his children.

The reason he didn't get elected is that he made hard decisions that fell outside party lines. In that period, democrats and republicans worked together regardless of who was president. There was a big budget deficit problem... democrats wanted to increase taxes while the republicans wanted to cut government spending. We were in a recession so HW didn't feel that cutting spending was viable so he sided with the democrats' plan for the budget deficit. The republican party felt betrayed, his popularity fell... and it cost him the second term.

He also spearheaded a big budget increase on educational spending... which went against Republican wishes.

The guy was smart, had principles and did what he felt was right regardless of which side came up with the idea.

He voted for the Civil Rights Act although it was unpopular in his Texas district when he was a congressman.

He supported birth control as a republican congressman.

His resume:
Congressional years (1967–1971)
Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973)
Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974)
Head of U.S. Liaison Office in China (1974–1975)
Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977)
US Vice President (1981-1989)
US President (1989-1993)

The guy was beyond accomplished. I admired him.

All great things that should be as equally remembered as his role in Iran-Contra, his war mongering in the middle east and his stance on HIV/AIDS.

McLewis wrote:All great things that should be as equally remembered as his role in Iran-Contra, his war mongering in the middle east and his stance on HIV/AIDS.

one day there will be another extinction event on planet earth but until that day comes there will always be some kind of war in the middle east. if the USA and the UK are not fighting it they will fight them selfs.

McLewis wrote:All great things that should be as equally remembered as his role in Iran-Contra, his war mongering in the middle east and his stance on HIV/AIDS.

He didn't war monger the middle east.  Iraq invaded Kuwait.  No way the international community was going to allow Iraq to take control of such a key player in the oil trade worldwide.

That invasion had little to do about war mongering and everything to do about oil.  If it was about anything else, the US wouldn't have left Iraq so quickly after securing Kuwait.

He was a conservative and maintained the Reagan policies regarding LGBT.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Having lived through that period...  i can honestly say that gay rights was the last thing on anyone's mind.  No way a conservative politician was going to take stand on this one.  Political suicide.

If you want to find faults with all the presidents, you can say that Eisenhower started the whole US mess in the middle east.  Abraham Lincoln silenced the press, suspended Habeas Corpus, ignored a Supreme Court ruling, etc.

They ALL made bad decisions.  It's the nature of having to make so many critical decisions as the president of the US. Goerge Bush did a ton more good than bad... he shaped a lot of very successful politics for the US over his career.

He and Clinton were the last two presidents who were committed to building consensus with both sides of the aisle as presidents. Clinton was a much better politician than Bush. Bush was much better statesman. Clinton learned to become a statesman in his second term. Bush's political awkwardness didn't afford him a chance to learn from his mistakes.

His administration instigated a war to get at the oil in the region. If that's not war-mongering, I don't know what is.

Everything else, I can agree with.

Hell, Dick Cheney basically admitted he wanted that war to try out their new “toys” in the Sacha Baron Cohen interview.

Still can’t believe that part of the show didn’t become a bigger deal. One of the most vile people of our time.

McLewis wrote:His administration instigated a war to get at the oil in the region. If that's not war-mongering, I don't know what is.

Everything else, I can agree with.

We're talking Bush Sr, correct?  The one who went to war because Kuwait was first invaded?  This isn't Bush Jr.

he didn't instigate anything.  Read your history.  Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam Hussein was in debt to Kuwait and didn't want to repay his debts.  He also wanted access to the pipelines and port because of the extra revenue it would generate for him.  He gambled that the US/Europeans wouldn't react because of their fear of Iran (Saddam was suppressing the majority Shi'a muslims in Irak, who were friendly with Iran).   He gambled wrong.

Unlike what happened later, the first gulf war was approved by the UN and it was a true coalition of nations. The US did not remove Saddam and did no invade. They simply took back Kuwait, crippled Saddam as much as possible in terms of military and left quickly.

sportsczy wrote:George Bush (the original) was an incredibly smartand great president. 10000000000000x smarter and more evolved than his children.

The reason he didn't get elected is that he made hard decisions that fell outside party lines. In that period, democrats and republicans worked together regardless of who was president. There was a big budget deficit problem... democrats wanted to increase taxes while the republicans wanted to cut government spending. We were in a recession so HW didn't feel that cutting spending was viable so he sided with the democrats' plan for the budget deficit. The republican party felt betrayed, his popularity fell... and it cost him the second term.

He also spearheaded a big budget increase on educational spending... which went against Republican wishes.

The guy was smart, had principles and did what he felt was right regardless of which side came up with the idea.

He voted for the Civil Rights Act although it was unpopular in his Texas district when he was a congressman.

He supported birth control as a republican congressman.

His resume:
Congressional years (1967–1971)
Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973)
Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974)
Head of U.S. Liaison Office in China (1974–1975)
Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977)
US Vice President (1981-1989)
US President (1989-1993)

The guy was beyond accomplished. I admired him.

isnt his IQ below 90? Like I'm not even kidding, I think hes considered as a legitimate moron.

sportsczy wrote:

McLewis wrote:His administration instigated a war to get at the oil in the region. If that's not war-mongering, I don't know what is.

Everything else, I can agree with.

We're talking Bush Sr, correct?  The one who went to war because Kuwait was first invaded?  This isn't Bush Jr.

Unlike what happened later, the first gulf war was approved by the UN and it was a true coalition of nations.  The US did not remove Saddam and did no invade.  They simply took back Kuwait, crippled Saddam as much as possible in terms of military and left quickly.

The UN only started approving an intervention after this




That's actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. The outrage in reaction to what she describes is what changed public opinions and the worlds mind.

The public justifications for both Iraq wars are lies. I don't know why you're defending the reasoning for the first Iraq war when it used as a classic example of atrocity propaganda.

Bellabong wrote:

sportsczy wrote:

McLewis wrote:His administration instigated a war to get at the oil in the region. If that's not war-mongering, I don't know what is.

Everything else, I can agree with.

We're talking Bush Sr, correct?  The one who went to war because Kuwait was first invaded?  This isn't Bush Jr.

Unlike what happened later, the first gulf war was approved by the UN and it was a true coalition of nations.  The US did not remove Saddam and did no invade.  They simply took back Kuwait, crippled Saddam as much as possible in terms of military and left quickly.

The UN only started approving an intervention after this




That's actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. The outrage in reaction to what she describes is what changed public opinions and the worlds mind.

The public justifications for both Iraq wars are lies. I don't know why you're defending the reasoning for the first Iraq war when it used as a classic example of atrocity propaganda.

this man really said hes socially liberal

Clutch wrote:

sportsczy wrote:George Bush (the original) was an incredibly smartand great president.  10000000000000x smarter and more evolved than his children.  

The reason he didn't get elected is that he made hard decisions that fell outside party lines.  In that period, democrats and republicans worked together regardless of who was president.  There was a big budget deficit problem...  democrats wanted to increase taxes while the republicans wanted to cut government spending.  We were in a recession so HW didn't feel that cutting spending was viable so he sided with the democrats' plan for the budget deficit.  The republican party felt betrayed, his popularity fell... and it cost him the second term.

He also spearheaded a big budget increase on educational spending... which went against Republican wishes.

The guy was smart, had principles and did what he felt was right regardless of which side came up with the idea.

He voted for the Civil Rights Act although it was unpopular in his Texas district when he was a congressman.

He supported birth control as a republican congressman.

His resume:
Congressional years (1967–1971)
Ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973)
Chairman of the Republican National Committee (1973–1974)
Head of U.S. Liaison Office in China (1974–1975)
Director of Central Intelligence (1976–1977)
US Vice President (1981-1989)
US President (1989-1993)

The guy was beyond accomplished.  I admired him.

isnt his IQ below 90? Like I'm not even kidding, I think hes considered as a legitimate moron.

You're talking about Bush Jr.  His son.  The father was absolutely brilliant (the one we're talking about here).  

The studies you see out there are bogus imo because their assumptions are biased.  As an example, a key component is scholarly achievement and a body of work that could be studied from an intellectual basis.  In short, those who had a history in academia, wrote books or were involved in studies had a very high coefficient while those who worked in private industry were at a distinct disadvantage using this method.

H.W. Bush was director of the CIA and played roles where his work was classified.  But you don't get these roles one after the other because you're stupid.  Also, he attended Yale and, due to his intellect, he was admitted to an accelerated program that allowed him to graduate in 2 years as opposed to 4.  He graduated with a BA in Economics and was a Phi Betta Kappa (honor society for academic brilliance in liberal arts).  Was also in the Skull and Bones Society in Yale, that later became the topic of several movies, including the Good Shepherd with Matt Damon.

He was a pilot in the navy in WW2 (before he went to Yale) where he flew 58 combat missions.  After college, he started a very successful oil company in Texas before getting into politics.

The guy's pedigree was impeccable.

I personally think calling him impeccable is a step too far. No president is impeccable and HW has never been known to be one of the great ones, in life or death. They all have skeletons in the closet or at the very least controversies that haunted them during or after their terms ended.

HW did more right than wrong and was certainly a better President in his 1 term than his son turned out to be in his 2. That's as far as I'm willing to go on his legacy.

Yeah Trump being shit now is making people see idiots like George W. with rose-tinted glasses, and his idiocy made his dad look good. Doesn't mean they were. Reagan's presidency was a shit-show, yet it is celebrated by Republicans because he had good approval ratings and made being a lunatic jesus freak mainstream, which is the basis of many of today's Republican's success.

You have no idea what Reagan inherited.  You think European tax rates are bad... before the The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, the highest federal income tax bracket was 70% (!!!).  It dropped to 50% after that.

The current top rate of 28% happened because of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 that took it down from 50%.

The country was a complete mess when Reagan took over:
-  The inflation rate peaked at 14.76% in 1980 (massive energy crisis)
-  We had stagflation. meaning that despite high inflation, the economy wasn't growing at all
-  Unemployment was at 20%
-  There was such a thing as a "misery index".  Here's what it looked like when Reagan took over and how he turned the country around:



Did he make mistakes?  His first term was superb.  But then he got really old, really quickly.  He was diagnosed "officially" with Alzheimer's 5 years after he left office... but we all knew that he was slipping in his second term.  

Reagan saved the US though, that's undeniable.  The country was headed towards collapse.

But, he didn't do a good job of transitioning away from crisis level policies into steady state ones...  and due to his slipping health, he allowed himself to get influenced (wrongly) in his second term.  But one can excuse him of that given his achievements.

I'm a big trickle-down economics guy.  Huge believer.  Government is a complete shit show.

Why are you posing as a democrat on here? You're as red as they come

Clutch wrote:Why are you posing as a democrat on here? You're as red as they come

A lot of conservatives are like that. Claim to be liberal but in truth they’re voting only for whoever will give them the biggest tax breaks.

I've voted Clinton (2nd term), Gore, Kerry, Obama and Clinton since HW.

Fiscally, I'm very conservative.  Socially, I'm very moderate and lean democrat.  I think these modern republicans are complete fanatics.  This "I know I make the right choices because God told me" stuff is insane.  Insult to people's intelligence the stuff they say...  can't stand it.

So in truth, I vote for people... not a particular party.  I think it's stupid to vote based on party lines regardless of the person.

I also cannot stand it that each side feels that it has a monopoly on morality and intellect.  Debate and consensus is what made the US great.  I don't care if people agree or disagree with me... just show the respect that i show you. I've traveled enough to know that everything is matter of perspective. Cultural relativism is very important to me.

You sound like a Moderate or an Independent to me, Sports, based on that description. That's quite commendable in this current political climate where moderate is more a dirty term than it ever has been. The demonization of moderates in current American politics is a perplexing phenomenon to me. I don't like tribalism and that's what it is, yet that is the direction we're going in thanks to Trump. My hope is that this is a temporary phase and once he's gone either in 2020 or 2024 (ugh I hope we don't have to wait that long) that our political climate will return to some semblance of normalcy. For my part, I'm too liberal to be moderate personally, but I'm ok with that.

So the 116th Congress is now in session, Nancy Pelosi has the Speakership back and Trump is now officially a lame duck President.

It'll be interesting to see how much further off the deep end he goes this year.

All the Democrats have to do is try to govern from their position of power. They don't even have to be successful at this point since the GOP-controlled Senate are going to obstruct them and ensure nothing gets passed. It's a strong narrative to take into 2020.

They're going to focus quite a bit on investigating Trump and his regime, that's a given, but they cannot be seen to be doing so fanatically or it will just drive right-wing independents back to Trump out of whatever sympathy he'll likely conjure up.

Most people are firmly entrenched in their partisanship and they eat out of the hands of the media they consume for news.  So I don't see Trump's base being swayed at all.  Quite the contrary.  They now have a ready made excuse (not that he didn't make up BS excuses until now).

I'll repeat this.  Unless the economy start moving south OR a viable democratic candidate comes forth, I'm pessimistic on Trump losing in 2020.  Media like CNN and others are making an error with how they're approaching the issues...  as much as it is an important and honorable thing, nobody in middle america, suburbia, etc. cares about LGBT rights, the environment, minority issues, how Europe or the world perceives us, whether the Kurds are going to get slaughtered once we leave, etc.

These people care about the economy, taxes, employment, infrastructure, healthcare, social security and a "strong" America (whatever that means).

The media can talk about the larger issues...  but they need to also appeal to these people on the points that matter to them and will sway their opinion.

Damn shame... but that's how it is.  Putting your head under the water on these realities won't win you an election.

It's not Trump's base that is the target for the swaying. They are beyond a lost cause. It's the independents whose votes will once again be up for grabs next year. There have always been independents and this election cycle will be no different.

The mainstream media (outside of Fox) will never appeal to middle america. Even if they really, truly wanted to, that's not really in their business model as their ratings come largely from the coasts. Media is a business first and foremost so they will put making money over talking about the issues that matter every single time. Their coverage will always reflect that. For me, watching those channels is the political equivalent of watching reality TV. You watch it largely for the entertainment, not to learn something though every so often, I am pleasantly surprised. I prefer getting more objective political news, reporting and journalism from a variety of places on both sides of the spectrum, some on the more partisan ends (Huffington Post / Breitbart), some on the more moderate ends (NPR / Townhall). Affords me a far better understanding of the issues than if I was getting all of it from a singular, centralized place like CNN, MSNBC or Fox. Being informed to the best of my ability is my biggest responsibility as a voter so I take that very seriously.

Last thing I'll say is that whether middle america wants to admit it or not, they absolutely care about social issues like LGBT rights, women's reproductive rights , criminal justice, the environment, global perception, etc. They care about these issues because they have a direct impact on who gets taxed and how much, how much we pay for healthcare, how easy it is to get hired/fired somewhere, who our kids go to school with and interact with, etc. Social issues and the core issues of the economy and national security are intertwined very intricately. It's not particularly accurate to say middle america cares more about one over the other.

Not to say that it's impossible Trump wins a second term or to say that the midterm results are going to look a lot like the 2020 results, but don't you think the midterm results say something about Trump's chances in 2020?

Obviously the Dem candidate is the X factor here and that's why they aren't directly comparable at all. But here in the Midwest, where Trump won the electoral college, we saw a pretty decisive shift to Democrats in the majority of races.

Sure in the majority of middle America and South, Trump's base isn't going anywhere. But in PA, MI, and WI, we saw that his base isnt going to carry him. They were already slim margins in 2016, and all three showed promise for Democrats in results. Even Walker got kicked out. He needs those states if he wants to replicate 2016. Oh, and he has 1.4 (not sure of exact numbers) new voters, heavily black, to deal with in Florida. Not sure how many will vote, but it's a big new block of voters in a pretty purple state.

Again, not saying it's impossible for Trump, but I think there is a case to be made for optimism for Democrats. They need a good candidate though, and that's where my optimism starts to sour (Warren? Really? Her chance is gone).

McLewis strikes me as a PBS Newshour watcher.

I hope so. Damn good program. As far as nightly news goes, can you get better?

Almost all ruling parties lose big in the midterms, I don't think Trump is beyond winning a 2nd term. He shouldn't, really, but he really might. People vote for him not despite his obvious flaws, but oftentimes because of them. His idiocy just endears him to his base even more, and with the electoral college being what it is, he still has a real chance, no matter the democrat's candidate.

If all the democrats that stayed home in 2016 get out and vote Trump won't win imo. Problem is what will it take for them to show, because Trump was just as abrasive, offensive, ignorant, etc in the campaign trail as he is in office.

@CB, yeah I do watch PBS news programs actually . Great guess, my dude.

My nightmare scenario is to see another schism between a Warren-like candidate of the far left (Bernie's done due to that sexual harrassment allegation against his staffer) and a moderate Dem like Harris that causes voters to stay home, allowing the GOP to repeat 2016 again. That absolutely cannot happen again.