• 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!

2016 - if it comes down to Clinton vs. Bush

What will you do?

  • Not vote

    Votes: 5 4.9%
  • Vote for Clinton

    Votes: 33 32.4%
  • Vote for Bush

    Votes: 28 27.5%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 4 3.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 32 31.4%

  • Total voters
    102
I agree with your post and will continue to do my part in the primaries.

I'm assuming that anyone who spends their leisure time on sites like this probably votes regularly.
 
I'd vote for Bush. If Cruz, Paul, Perry, Carson, etc were the GOP nominee I'd vote for Clinton.

Why? What is it about Jeb Bush that would be better than Clinton? And how would the others you mentioned be worse than Clinton?

What about Pence?
 
Why? What is it about Jeb Bush that would be better than Clinton? And how would the others you mentioned be worse than Clinton?

What about Pence?

I think he would have a firmer commitment to a strong and involved US foreign policy, a firmer commitment to completing languishing free trade agreements, a firmer commitment to avoid tax hikes, and a general outlook on financial regulations such as editing the worst elements of Dodd-Frank. I also think he would prudently defer to the Federal Reserve for most monetary decisions (I don't want an activist President on this), he has an admirable ideological flexibility when it comes to issues like education which I suspect extends to other issues.

I think Cruz, Perry, and Carson are not qualified for the Presidency. I would not trust them in that office. I find Rand Paul's foreign policy positions frighteningly suspect in the best of circumstances and could not in good conscience vote for him. I think Pence is behind the times when it comes to where the bulk of the American people are on social issues and immigration but other than that I have no firm opinion.
 
Personally, folks, I believe the Clinton and Bush families should just go home (enjoy life, money, good times and friends/family) - wherever that may be and stay there.

Now. I'm basically anti-politician (and becoming more so, seemingly as each day passes). What being anti-politician means to me is walking the walk (instead of just talking the talk). If I'm anti-politics, then why am I here? I personally believe that I can lead by example and stop behaving like a politician on these forums - and do what I think the Bush and Clinton families (and their supporters) should do (have fun and savor every moment - live and let live).

I'm fed up with politics and am going to try to make this my last post in this forum - I resign from any further debates.

I'm now moving on with my life. Well, goodbye now.

 
I voted against McCain in those primaries - voted for him in the general election, so my conscience is clean there. ;)

One of the hardest decisions I ever made - to not vote for Bob Barr there - but I stand by my vote.

I didn't vote for McCain during the Republican primary but did vote for him during the general election.

The last two Republican candidates running for the Republican nomination for President that I voted for and actually won the Republican nomination was in 1980 and 1984. That was Reagan.
 
So the your only objection is their last names?? That's a pretty narrow-minded and, dare I say it, ignorant approach. We should be evaluating our leaders based on their capabilities, not their families.

Well, no. Jeb Bush supported the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, his immigration position is very questionable, he supports Wall Street rather than Main Street, he was sitting on Lehman's board when the economy crashed, and is currently on a board, he supports federalized education. In a campaign things like his wife's attempted hiding $20,000 worth of goods from customs on a return trip to Paris would come up, his daughters drug related arrests would come up. In a Bush/Clinton campaign it'd be 1992 and back to the future. The Bush and Clinton family's actually like each other, Barbara has stated that she "loves Bill Clinton" and that Bill Clinton "thinks of 41 as a father figure". It would be a bloody contest. Furthermore, even Barbara acknowledges what most Americans know, NO MORE BUSH's. And in a poll, 50% of registered voters said they would not vote for Jeb, and that included 18% of republicans.
 
My husband and I share similar views, but we are in no way comparable. Perhaps some actual Clinton experience, namely having Bill to bounce ideas off of, may not be too bad and goes to Hillary's credit more so than he lame show as Sec of State.
As for Jeb, again, my siblings and I have much in common, but we hardly can be compared when making decisions. Here again, some experience from someone who is easily accessible may be beneficial.
A side by side comparison, Jeb gets my vote for actually having leadership experience. What does Hillary have to offer?
I do agree with many here who are wondering why we don't have other and more capable potential leaders. Time will tell, I am not worried yet and it won't change anything if I did.
Its time for everyone to look more closely at 3rd party options.



I'm totally down with the bolded.
 
I would vote for Gary Johnson.
 
Whom will you vote for, if you vote at all?

I won't be voting, if it happens that way. Queen Hillary the 2nd vs. King Jeb the 3rd? LOL - thanks, but no thanks. Think I'd rather dive into a den of cobras, then have to choose between one of those clowns. :lol:

What's scary is that it may just happen - goes to show how dumb we are becoming, imo.

Discuss - poll soon to follow.
I will write in Captain Courtesy....who really should launch his campaign on this site soon...

If it came down to Clinton vs Bush, I think Bush would win and the election would be close.
 
The hardest decision for Jeb's campaign would be which slogan to go with:

"I am not my brother"

or

"Hell, I can't be any worse than my brother"
 
I would vote for Gary Johnson.

When the election was between Romney and Obama, that is exactly who I voted for. Are they telling me with all those people out there who profess to be Republicans and Democrats, they can't come up with 2 good candidates.
 
I think he would have a firmer commitment to a strong and involved US foreign policy, a firmer commitment to completing languishing free trade agreements, a firmer commitment to avoid tax hikes, and a general outlook on financial regulations such as editing the worst elements of Dodd-Frank. I also think he would prudently defer to the Federal Reserve for most monetary decisions (I don't want an activist President on this), he has an admirable ideological flexibility when it comes to issues like education which I suspect extends to other issues.

I think Cruz, Perry, and Carson are not qualified for the Presidency. I would not trust them in that office. I find Rand Paul's foreign policy positions frighteningly suspect in the best of circumstances and could not in good conscience vote for him. I think Pence is behind the times when it comes to where the bulk of the American people are on social issues and immigration but other than that I have no firm opinion.

I think any Republican running would do better than Clinton in all the things you mentioned in bold.
 
The hardest decision for Jeb's campaign would be which slogan to go with:

"I am not my brother"

or

"Hell, I can't be any worse than my brother"
That GWB is still polarizing, Jeb can use that to contrast himself with a few bi-partisan compromises and seem even more agreeable to moderates and undecided.

Anyway we're going back into Iraq, so we need a Republican in office to keep up the political narrative. I expect Jeb to sell his brand by taking moderate positions on social issues (look for "I'm pro-life but I accept Roe v. Wade as the law of the land" and "I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman but I wouldn't push my religious views onto others and I believe in the State's right to regulate marriage") , giving lip service to strong border control and gun control, yet won't do anything to actually secure the border and would be open to signing new gun control (universal background checks, specifically, not an assault-weapon ban as that would be to Clintonesq)...all while conducting a renewed war in the ME.
 
Last edited:
I would probably vote for Jeb Bush. My inclinations want a reform-minded conservative who isn't afraid of using government to push forward those reforms. As a result, I would prefer a Bush, Christie, or Jindal. However, provide me with a Rand Paul, and I will vote for a Democrat (most preferably, Hillary Clinton).
 
To me the nation is in real trouble if the best we can do is another Bush and another Clinton, tells me that we have a real issue with a modern day aristocracy here.

Seriously, this is the best we have to run this nation?

This is such democratic paranoia and nonsense. Is it really necessary to placate the unwashed masses to such an extent that we balk at that prospect of having two decently qualified and institutionally-backed candidates, because they come from the same family? Oh the heavens will fall!
 
I can't say I know much about Jeb Bush, other than Florida seemed to do well when he was Governor.
Having actual executive governmental experience would be a big plus.

After Jeb left office, kids still thought he was governor for a few years.

He did some good.
 
This is such democratic paranoia and nonsense. Is it really necessary to placate the unwashed masses to such an extent that we balk at that prospect of having two decently qualified and institutionally-backed candidates, because they come from the same family? Oh the heavens will fall!

I'll match that with your blissful ignorance at the risk of aristocracy based on key families in political power.
 
I think any Republican running would do better than Clinton in all the things you mentioned in bold.

I think Clinton would be much better for foreign policy than Rand Paul, and I also trust her more than those others to deal with the monetary policy prudently. Furthermore there are more issues than just the above that I find important those are just the ones that I think particularly distinguish Bush from Clinton. I also find competency, administrative capability, level-headedness, a lack of radicalism, and pragmatism to be important. I would never trust Cruz, Perry, or Carson with the Presidency.
 
Niether. I don't give a fat rat's ass what either says or promises, I will not vote for members of a political dynasty. Our forefathers fought a revolution to end that insanity. But this ain't the America that fought for independence. We are less free. America is now the empire. While America may now be better read than it was when it was first founded, but Americans are now probably a hell of a lot more stupid and intellectually lazy.

Sadly most Americans believe that they need to be ruled by the Bush Family or the Clinton Family because...well....you know...because..."their families were on television a lot, and stuff."
 
When the election was between Romney and Obama, that is exactly who I voted for. Are they telling me with all those people out there who profess to be Republicans and Democrats, they can't come up with 2 good candidates.

Bingo, brother! Those are my sentiments exactly.

I also voted for Gary Johnson.
 
Clinton will win landslide.
 
I'll match that with your blissful ignorance at the risk of aristocracy based on key families in political power.

The democrat would gladly dismiss the quality candidate with an established name to satisfy the pitiful liberal delusion that any candidate, no matter how ill-fit, is preferable to having another man with the same last name.
 
Hmm...

open borders for surplus labor vs. open borders for surplus labor.

Imperialist foreign policy for State Capitalism to thrive vs. Imperialist foreign policy for State Capitalism to thrive

support and subsidize special interests vs. support and subsidize special interests

Stacked cabinet and agencies with corporate executives responsible for overseeing the industries they'll go back to profiting from vs. Stacked cabinet and agencies with corporate executives responsible for overseeing the industries they'll go back to profiting from

this suppose to be a choice?



I notice a few people say they'd vote for GJ if these 2 were the choices. My question is, why not vote for GJ anyway? If everyone voted for the man who wouldn't vote for him because he hasn't been deemed "viable"by the talking box in their living room -- you never know what could happen? :shrug:
 
The democrat would gladly dismiss the quality candidate with an established name to satisfy the pitiful liberal delusion that any candidate, no matter how ill-fit, is preferable to having another man with the same last name.

That is still not the point, it is merely opinion that a 3rd Bush or 2nd Clinton would do well. Not one that I share, you compound that with my concerns for aristocracy and we have a clear reason to be concerned. One that you rather stupidly ignore.
 
Bingo, brother! Those are my sentiments exactly.

I also voted for Gary Johnson.

I think there comes a time, at least those who are not hard core Reps or Dems that they just get tired of all this business as usual.
 
Back
Top Bottom