• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Jeb Bush Gets Huge Applause After Saying His Brother 'Kept Us Safe'

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Jeb Bush Gets Huge Applause After Saying His Brother 'Kept Us Safe'

Jeb Bush fired back, invoking the 9/11 terror attacks.

"You know what? As it relates to my brother, there is one thing I know for sure, he kept us safe," Bush said, having to pause for one of the biggest rounds of applause from the audience of the night. "I don't know if you remember, Donald. You remember the rubble? You remember the firefighter with his arms around it?

:confused:

That's the definition of NOT keeping us safe, Jeb.
:(
Shame on you, and shame on the audience.
 
It was a crowd of conservatives. Those people aren't too bright.
 
It was not a very bright thing for Bush to say. Not just from a 9-11 and two costly wars standpoint, but it implies support for the NSA, all that comes with it, and the massive uptick in government under Bush 43's watch.
 
Commenting with a friend during the debate, I actually said that Bush handled that about as well as he could. He was in a rock and a hard place.

Trump was going after his brother heavily. If Bush continued to just shrug it off and let it pass, he looks weak as a man is just trashing his family over and over again. On the flip side, attempt to stand up for your brother and suddenly you're tying yourself to him when you've tried really hard to build a separation.

Based on some of the other applause points in that night, I imagine the clapping was as much for people fully agreeing with him as it was with people happy he stood up to Trump. For those who watched that abysmal display on CNN, many of the largest applause points were individuals standing up to Trump in a forceful manner. I think that was a large element of it there.

Additionally, as is often the case, the crowd you're playing to is what matters when speaking publicly. A largely republican crowd, when thinking about "safety" in a post 9/11 world, is likely to be thinking from the mindset of the homeland and the general citizens. The military isn't as direct a component of that, just as the thought of police being in danger isn't necessarily a direct component of thinking about a neighborhood being kept "safe"; they are volunteers who chose to enter into a line of duty that could put them at risk. While I understand how many others, especially those on the left who welcome the political capital that the Iraq war gives them, view it differently it's dishonest to act as if you're flabbergasted that someone would make the comment, or get that reaction, in a crowd that clearly has a very different method of thinking and interpreting the situation than you.

Overall I think it's the type of moment where, within that narrow instance it was actually a good move and a positive for him, but in the long run it'll be a negative as it undermines his attempt to distance himself from his brother. But as I said, Trump maneuvered him into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation there which...strangely...is smart on Trumps part.
 
Commenting with a friend during the debate, I actually said that Bush handled that about as well as he could. He was in a rock and a hard place.

Trump was going after his brother heavily. If Bush continued to just shrug it off and let it pass, he looks weak as a man is just trashing his family over and over again. On the flip side, attempt to stand up for your brother and suddenly you're tying yourself to him when you've tried really hard to build a separation.

Based on some of the other applause points in that night, I imagine the clapping was as much for people fully agreeing with him as it was with people happy he stood up to Trump. For those who watched that abysmal display on CNN, many of the largest applause points were individuals standing up to Trump in a forceful manner. I think that was a large element of it there.

Additionally, as is often the case, the crowd you're playing to is what matters when speaking publicly. A largely republican crowd, when thinking about "safety" in a post 9/11 world, is likely to be thinking from the mindset of the homeland and the general citizens. The military isn't as direct a component of that, just as the thought of police being in danger isn't necessarily a direct component of thinking about a neighborhood being kept "safe"; they are volunteers who chose to enter into a line of duty that could put them at risk. While I understand how many others, especially those on the left who welcome the political capital that the Iraq war gives them, view it differently it's dishonest to act as if you're flabbergasted that someone would make the comment, or get that reaction, in a crowd that clearly has a very different method of thinking and interpreting the situation than you.

Overall I think it's the type of moment where, within that narrow instance it was actually a good move and a positive for him, but in the long run it'll be a negative as it undermines his attempt to distance himself from his brother. But as I said, Trump maneuvered him into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation there which...strangely...is smart on Trumps part.

I don't view the Iraq War as capital (I do view it as another in a 50-60 year line of bipartisan clusterf**ks in that part of the world, but that's a topic for another day), or anything else and I don't think you even have to go that far to see how offensive and stupid the comment was.

I simply-- never-- ever will forget watching people make the decision they'd rather fall 1000 feet to their death than burn alive. On that day 'we' were absolutely not kept safe, and whether Trolly mcTrump walked Jeb into a rhetorical debate trap or not, it is a disgusting and patently dishonest thing to say that his brother kept us safe that day. $0.02 last night he pissed on the victims' graves and slapped the faces of those poor families.
 
Commenting with a friend during the debate, I actually said that Bush handled that about as well as he could. He was in a rock and a hard place.

Trump was going after his brother heavily. If Bush continued to just shrug it off and let it pass, he looks weak as a man is just trashing his family over and over again. On the flip side, attempt to stand up for your brother and suddenly you're tying yourself to him when you've tried really hard to build a separation.
Short of declaring his brother wrong (which would carry its own pitfalls), I agree with you.

The problem is defending George W. Bush is not a winner (especially when you claim he kept us safe when thousands upon thousands of Americans died on his watch). On one hand, it's a little unfair to judge Jeb because of his father's and brother's records...but would Jeb even be in this discussion if not for them? It's one of those situations where there's no good solution and the best Jeb can do is continue to try and downplay it as much as possible.

Overall I think it's the type of moment where, within that narrow instance it was actually a good move and a positive for him, but in the long run it'll be a negative as it undermines his attempt to distance himself from his brother. But as I said, Trump maneuvered him into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation there which...strangely...is smart on Trumps part.
I don't think it's strange at all. Trump is a master of conversation and debate. Where Trump pales is not in his ability to handle attacks and provide quips, it is in his ability to provide specific details and nuanced plans. If a candidate wouldn't bother to exchange little barbs with Trump, but would rather insist on hearing specifics, then Trump would be in a bind. I don't know if it's because Trump doesn't have the knowledge or if he's playing the "if I don't give details, I don't have to defend them" game, but either way, it's where Trump is weakest.

But I disagree completely with your insinuation that Trump smartly maneuvering about in a conversation is strange and unusual. Trump is very good at that.
 
Jeb Bush Gets Huge Applause After Saying His Brother 'Kept Us Safe'



:confused:

That's the definition of NOT keeping us safe, Jeb.
:(
Shame on you, and shame on the audience.

W is unfairly maligned because the housing bubble that he did not create burst as his term ended. He ordered the invasion of Iraq with nearly full support of congress. There was a lot of disfunction in our government after the attack of 9/11 and looking back it's clear that mistakes were made. The mistakes were bipartisan. I don't fault Jeb for defending his brother. That's what good brothers do.

This is what upset me with Jeb last night. He said that his advisors would be made up of members of the last two republican administrations. Republicans are fed up with the Republican party and the only thing they agree about is Democrats are worse. That's why outsiders are doing so well this cycle. They want new blood, not recycled establishment politicos who are established inside the beltway.

That one statement was enough for me to scratch Jeb off my list and I've met him and liked him in person.
 
W definitely did not keep our country safe. Yeah, he was dealt a bad hand, but I don't see how one can say he kept us safe while keeping a straight face.

That said, W is Jeb's brother. I am not going to fault the guy for standing up for his family. And I think a good portion of the applause he received was because people appreciate someone standing up for their family.
 
The idea of nation building in other nations may prove to be (has proven to have been?) not a cost effective solution to "keeping us safe". If keeping us safe requires an endless deployment of US troops abroad then I disagree with the "Bush plan".

Defining a problem is not the same as defining an effective solution to that problem. A top down solution (regime change) to a bottom up problem (dislike of western values) is not the best of ideas. Removing a government (or system of governemnt) creates a power/leadership vaccum that must be filled immediately - if that cannot be assured then it is best not done. Knocking off dictators does not magically cause democracy to take root - it often simply opens the door for the next dictator who may (rightly?) be seen as having US support.
 
This is what upset me with Jeb last night. He said that his advisors would be made up of members of the last two republican administrations.

We have some young talent coming around, but frankly, the Republican Party's greatest assets are folks that served during the Bush Sr. and W. Bush era. That's just reality.


Republicans are fed up with the Republican party and the only thing they agree about is Democrats are worse. That's why outsiders are doing so well this cycle. They want new blood, not recycled establishment politicos who are established inside the beltway.

And that's precisely why we should ignore them.
 
We have some young talent coming around, but frankly, the Republican Party's greatest assets are folks that served during the Bush Sr. and W. Bush era. That's just reality.




And that's precisely why we should ignore them.

If you are satisfied with show votes on Obamacare and no effectively positive changes, or if you re satisfied to imaginary opposition to the Iran suggestion, I don't call it a deal, then you can be happy with the same old same old. If you oppose dealing with illegal immigration, the establishment will not disappoint you. Personally, I'd like to see most of the politicians trespassed and not allowed to return to Washington under any circumstance.
 
While I understand how many others, especially those on the left who welcome the political capital that the Iraq war gives them,

I think it's very low to think about Iraq in terms of political capital. The way Iraq was handled under the Bush admin was an unmitigated disaster and only people with blinders on say so. Even if you ignore the decision to invade in the first place, how it was handled afterwards was catastrophe after catastrophe because of stubburn bullheaded ignorance.

For the notion of "he kept us safe" to be true is to ignore the thousands of Americans who died in 9-11...non of whom volunteered for that. It's like saying someone has foresight for installing a security system AFTER a house or business gets robbed.
 
If you are satisfied with show votes on Obamacare and no effectively positive changes

You're not going to overturn the ACA. In the beginning it was possible if you had the numbers, but you didn't. Later it became impossible because people were too dissatisfied with the pre-ACA environment and didn't want to go through a full-boar replacement strategy (especially since no one had a substantive plan that the GOP could move behind in unison). In the meantime, you have had some votes on changing the ACA around the edges and had the necessary bi-partisan support to get it through. That's a good thing.

if you re satisfied to imaginary opposition to the Iran suggestion, I don't call it a deal, then you can be happy with the same old same old.

I'd be happy with a condition being applied to the existing deal that would open the gates for opposition leaders, while approving the deal. Worked well for the future Reagan Democrats with SALT.

If you oppose dealing with illegal immigration, the establishment will not disappoint you.

Illegal immigration is a behemoth issue that is not going to be solved, let alone with bombast. I also doubt that your kind of Republicans are that interested in hiking up the civil service numbers in DHS that are sorely lacking not only in their department, but throughout the federal government's infrastructure.

Personally, I'd like to see most of the politicians trespassed and not allowed to return to Washington under any circumstance.

Utterly stupid suggestion. Washington isn't the problem. It's a place. All you're wanting to do is increase the pool of inexperienced possible talent while turning away experienced proven talent.
 
Commenting with a friend during the debate, I actually said that Bush handled that about as well as he could. He was in a rock and a hard place.

Trump was going after his brother heavily. If Bush continued to just shrug it off and let it pass, he looks weak as a man is just trashing his family over and over again. On the flip side, attempt to stand up for your brother and suddenly you're tying yourself to him when you've tried really hard to build a separation.

Based on some of the other applause points in that night, I imagine the clapping was as much for people fully agreeing with him as it was with people happy he stood up to Trump. For those who watched that abysmal display on CNN, many of the largest applause points were individuals standing up to Trump in a forceful manner. I think that was a large element of it there.

Additionally, as is often the case, the crowd you're playing to is what matters when speaking publicly. A largely republican crowd, when thinking about "safety" in a post 9/11 world, is likely to be thinking from the mindset of the homeland and the general citizens. The military isn't as direct a component of that, just as the thought of police being in danger isn't necessarily a direct component of thinking about a neighborhood being kept "safe"; they are volunteers who chose to enter into a line of duty that could put them at risk. While I understand how many others, especially those on the left who welcome the political capital that the Iraq war gives them, view it differently it's dishonest to act as if you're flabbergasted that someone would make the comment, or get that reaction, in a crowd that clearly has a very different method of thinking and interpreting the situation than you.

Overall I think it's the type of moment where, within that narrow instance it was actually a good move and a positive for him, but in the long run it'll be a negative as it undermines his attempt to distance himself from his brother. But as I said, Trump maneuvered him into a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situation there which...strangely...is smart on Trumps part.



"Tried really hard to build a separation"? What are you talking about? Jeb has constantly been defending his brother, said he would do the same thing in Iraq (even knowing what we know now) and even went so far as to embrace his brother's economic policies. The biggest mistake that Jeb has made has been embracing his brother rather than trying to run away from him as fast as possible.
 




:confused:

That's the definition of NOT keeping us safe, Jeb.
:(
Shame on you, and shame on the audience.



G.W. Bush didn't keep the USA safe on September 11, 2001.

And he didn't make the USA any safer by attacking Iraq which was no threat to the USA. All that he did in Iraq was waste thousands of U.S. lives and billions of U.S. Dollars and helped Iran by putting its Shia brothers in charge in Iraq.
 
W definitely did not keep our country safe. Yeah, he was dealt a bad hand, but I don't see how one can say he kept us safe while keeping a straight face.

That said, W is Jeb's brother. I am not going to fault the guy for standing up for his family.
And I think a good portion of the applause he received was because people appreciate someone standing up for their family.



If my brother is wrong I'm not going to stand up for him, I'm going to stand up for what's right.

I don't believe that Jeb Bush will be moving into the White House.
 
We have some young talent coming around, but frankly, the Republican Party's greatest assets are folks that served during the Bush Sr. and W. Bush era. That's just reality.

No.

The Republican Party's greatest scoundrels are folks that served during the Bush Sr. and W. Bush era.
 
Would you expect anything other than applause, coming from GOP? Had Cheney pranced across the stage wearing pasties, he too would have received applause.

It was diluted applause.

The Neo-Cons applauded, the conservatives didn't.
 
Jeb Bush Gets Huge Applause After Saying His Brother 'Kept Us Safe'



:confused:

That's the definition of NOT keeping us safe, Jeb.
:(
Shame on you, and shame on the audience.

I welcome you back to society... while you were away (perhaps a coma), Bush43 did keep us safe, while Obama has failed to do so. Further... he's dropped the ball in the Mid East.

His "Red Line" in Syria, turned invisible... in Benghazi our consulate was attacked and people killed as he did nothing... and the "JV Team"... ISIS... has become a disturbing force.

Obama has failed at everything... domestic and foreign. Quite the record.
 
I welcome you back to society... while you were away (perhaps a coma), Bush43 did keep us safe, while Obama has failed to do so. Further... he's dropped the ball in the Mid East.

His "Red Line" in Syria, turned invisible... in Benghazi our consulate was attacked and people killed as he did nothing... and the "JV Team"... ISIS... has become a disturbing force.

Obama has failed at everything... domestic and foreign. Quite the record.

Tell that to the victim s of 911
 
Back
Top Bottom