2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

MightyMandarin

I might disagree with Rand Paul on most things, but hats off to him for taking a stand against the Patriot Act. Took some serious balls to ignore establishment Republicans and stand up for what he believes in. He probably ruined his campaign, not that he was going to win anyway, but he deserves praise for trying to stop the NSA spying on its citizens.

Amerika

Looks like Lindsey Graham jumped into the race to run against Rand Paul.

alaimacerc

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I might disagree with Rand Paul on most things, but hats off to him for taking a stand against the Patriot Act.

Evil genius Obama repeals PATRIOT Act by cunning use of reverse psychology on the 'Publicans? Only theory of this so far that makes much sense...

MightyMandarin

alaimacerc wrote: »

Evil genius Obama repeals PATRIOT Act by cunning use of reverse psychology on the 'Publicans? Only theory of this so far that makes much sense...

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

lochderg

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

It's strange ,given the feelgood factor which accompanied Obama's rise and the perception that he's a 'goodie' that he wouldn't feel compelled to explain more about his actions

eire4

lochderg wrote: »

It's strange ,given the feelgood factor which accompanied Obama's rise and the perception that he's a 'goodie' that he wouldn't feel compelled to explain more about his actions

When it comes to military spending, military action around the world spying on his own people and supposed allies etc there really is little difference between Obama and the Bush regime before him so his latest threats and intimadation tactics over the Patriot/freedom act is not surprise at all.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Looks like Lindsey Graham jumped into the race to run against Rand Paul.

In my opinion, the GOP need to coalesce behind 2-3 candidates very soon, or they risk being drowned out.

The Trump sideshow is about to steal the headlines form many more serious contenders.

jank

MightyMandarin wrote: »

It's a nice thought and all, but Obama has done nothing to stop the Govt. spying on its people. A lot of Democrat senators also disappointed me on this issue, and I'm a little annoyed that Bernie Sanders or Warren have done nothing to try and stop the 'Freedom Act' or whatever bs name they gave to replace the 'Patriot Act'.

Tbh Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and they are not known for their love of a small state, in fact quite the opposite. It is interesting though that the main opponents against the 'Freedom Act' is indeed the libertarian wing of the GOP with Rand Paul being its most vocal critic.

The democrats look very much the same it seems, while the GOP have candidates that have widly different views on many matters.

lochderg

jank wrote: »

Tbh Bernie Sanders is a Socialist and they are not known for their love of a small state, in fact quite the opposite. It is interesting though that the main opponents against the 'Freedom Act' is indeed the libertarian wing of the GOP with Rand Paul being its most vocal critic.

The democrats look very much the same it seems, while the GOP have candidates that have widly different views on many matters.

I also think anything anti-Obama is a good bandwagon for a republican/Libertarian-they've proved that again and again

Thargor

Cant believe how few people are questioning that name "The Freedom Act". George Orwell would have passed on using it because it was too cheesy...

jank

lochderg wrote: »

I also think anything anti-Obama is a good bandwagon for a republican/Libertarian-they've proved that again and again

Not so in this case. Obama and the Hawks in the GOP are on the same page as this one. Will Obama have to hand back his nobel peace prize?

Brian?

Now I'm watching Rick Perry declare his candidacy. He just compared himself to George Washington. Nice.

Another big name enters the fray. But he's not piling high enough to actually get into the debate.

eire4

Thargor wrote: »

Cant believe how few people are questioning that name "The Freedom Act". George Orwell would have passed on using it because it was too cheesy...

haha it is funny but not funny. I get where your coming from. The names they give for these acts are so the exact opposite of what they actually do. I think they really do spend time working on these names with PR people as many Americans don't really pay attention as they are so checked out of the US system of government. All they hear is Patriot Act then Freedom Act and its to save Americans from terrorists and keep the US safe so who wouldn't be for that.

Paleface

I'm glad Rick Perry is back in the race as he's bound to come up with another glorious gaffe during the primaries.

Also I hope these guys do another video of him!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs

lochderg

brilliant

arold10

Black Swan wrote: »

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is a conservative, has the well known Bush family name with 2 former US presidents, but also the GW Bush Great Recessionary image problem (as well as having launched the 2 longest wars in US history). He may run, or he may sit this one out.

That's my biggest problem with Jeb Bush trying to run for president as a third Bush. We've already had two Bush, they both have been a disaster for this country. I don't see why we should try another one. I think that something he'll have a very tough time to defend after the abject failures of both his father and brother.

Amerika

arold10 wrote: »

That's my biggest problem with Jeb Bush trying to run for president as a third Bush. We've already had two Bush, they both have been a disaster for this country. I don't see why we should try another one. I think that something he'll have a very tough time to defend after the abject failures of both his father and brother.

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

arold10

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Well, although many may not be satisfied with the current administration. But you cannot compare the type of terrible legacy both Bush have left behind with what Obama will be left behind. Come on man! We don't need another third Bush, we've already tried two, they've both failed. We can't gamble our way with another one.

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Do you honestly believe George W Bush's economic and military adventures can be described as a better way to run a country than the Obama administration? Do you genuinely believe it or do you just feel its something you have to say when you see republicans being criticized?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

The even more abject failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton's actions (in office and out) as SoS could trump people's decision at the poles.

Let's leave Benghazi aside. What were Hilary Clintons "abject failures" as Secretary of State.

I don't want to hear about the "pay for play" rumours related to the Clinton Institute again. I want you to actually back up what you've just said. If she was an "abject failure" tell us why.

alaimacerc

Brian? wrote: »

What were Hilary Clintons "abject failures" as Secretary of State.

Being a Democrat in a built-up area. (To steal the old Not the Nine O'Clock News gag.)

Amerika

arold10 wrote: »

Well, although many may not be satisfied with the current administration. But you cannot compare the type of terrible legacy both Bush have left behind with what Obama will be left behind. Come on man! We don't need another third Bush, we've already tried two, they've both failed. We can't gamble our way with another one.

Right now both George W Bush and George HW Bush have better favorable ratings than Barack Obama. When GW Bush left office our national debt was $10.6 Trillion. When Obama leaves office it will be around $20 Trillion. That alone is a heck of a legacy to leave behind. What more than being the first black president will he be noted for do you think?

And we’ve gambled our way this last 6 years and have rolled snake eyes.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Let's leave Benghazi aside. What were Hilary Clintons "abject failures" as Secretary of State.

I don't want to hear about the "pay for play" rumours related to the Clinton Institute again. I want you to actually back up what you've just said. If she was an "abject failure" tell us why.

Sorry amigo, you can't ignore what had transpired regarding the Clinton Foundation during her time as SoS, and of which has caused her to be untrustworthy in the eyes of the majority of the American people. And you can’t forget Benghazi because at a minimum it is an example of her poor judgement abilities. Okay, lets move on. How did that “Reset” thing work out with Russia? How has the Middle East turned out, and in particular her lack of preparedness in Libya, misjudgment of al-Qaeda’s strength, no coherent plan to address the Arab Spring, poor assessment of (the “reformer” as she called him) Bashar al-Assad, the deteriorating relations with Israel, completely clueless that the total withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq would lead to the creation of ISIS? And how have we looked in the eyes of our allies with her as Secretary of State? I think "abject failure" is being rather kind. But she has racked up of a bunch of frequent flyer miles... I guess that should count from something, eh?

And I’m sure you’ll come back with a monsterous list of all her wonderful accomplishments while Secretary of State.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

When GW Bush left office our national debt was $10.6 Trillion. When Obama leaves office it will be around $20 Trillion. That alone is a heck of a legacy to leave behind.

Lessee: GOP runs the economy off a cliff. GOP runs up a massive deficit with unfunded tax cuts. GOP uses control of Congress -- in particular, long-standing control of the lower chamber, which constitutionally is the instigator and primary controller of budgetary matters -- to avoid any acceptable way of addressing the deficit. Increasing debt is mathematically thereby ensured.

Yes, terrible "Obama legacy", there.

Amerika

Anyone catch Jon Stewart’s skewing of the New York Times blatant bias against Republicans in the race and particularly Rubio? Sometimes I’m really going to miss Stewart.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Lessee: GOP runs the economy off a cliff. GOP runs up a massive deficit with unfunded tax cuts. GOP uses control of Congress -- in particular, long-standing control of the lower chamber, which constitutionally is the instigator and primary controller of budgetary matters -- to avoid any acceptable way of addressing the deficit. Increasing debt is mathematically thereby ensured.

Yes, terrible "Obama legacy", there.

You've told me nothing. And by the way... haven't we gotten our first budget, now that the GOP is in control of Congress, in like 6 years? Damn those Republicans! I guess now we can kiss those spend like a drunken sailor days goodbye.

alaimacerc

Amerika wrote: »

You've told me nothing.

Of course I haven't. You already knew this. So the question is, why continue to post these "the economy: all Obama's fault!" posts, fully aware ahead of time they're so readily refuted?

arold10

Amerika wrote: »

Right now both George W Bush and George HW Bush have better favorable ratings than Barack Obama. When GW Bush left office our national debt was $10.6 Trillion. When Obama leaves office it will be around $20 Trillion. That alone is a heck of a legacy to leave behind. What more than being the first black president will he be noted for do you think?

And we’ve gambled our way this last 6 years and have rolled snake eyes.

Do you know when the president came into office he found on trillion dollars deficit. If things are the current state they are it's because of the mess George Bush has left.

Amerika

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of course I haven't. You already knew this. So the question is, why continue to post these "the economy: all Obama's fault!" posts, fully aware ahead of time they're so readily refuted?

Knew what? Tell me how does the deficit run up by the GOP compare to the truly massive debt run up by Barack Obama? And explain how spending $10 Trillion dollars more than we have is reasonable? Also, I recall the GOP lower chamber continually trying to address the massive spending and the budget, only to be thwarted by the Democrat controlled Senate.

Amerika

arold10 wrote: »

Do you know when the president came into office he found on trillion dollars deficit. If things are the current state they are it's because of the mess George Bush has left.

I’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at. But when you talk about the mess left by Bush are you referring to the recession brought on by the democrat’s forcing banks to make risky home loans and lend to people who couldn’t afford to pay them, and the subsequent greed of the banking industry because of it?