• 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!

Which family looks more "Americana"? The Clinton's or Jeb Bush's?

Which family looks more "Americana"? The Clinton's or Jeb Bush's?

  • Jeb Bush's family

    Votes: 11 50.0%
  • Clinton's family

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22

Ryan5

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
2,191
Reaction score
483
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Which family looks more "Americana"? The Clinton's or Jeb Bush's?



Clinton family:

o7YYN2A.jpg

qt3XKw7.jpg


Jeb Bush's family:
WtDh8mV.jpg

eflBfEX.jpg

oDYVkqg.jpg
 
That could hurt Jeb in the primaries.
 
Dunno, I think it would be zeroed out by the prospect of hound dog Willie being First Lady. He'll have the jet, the budget and plenty of time on his hands. Scary thought, lock up your ugliest daughters. :mrgreen:
 
Which family looks more "Americana"? The Clinton's or Jeb Bush's?



Clinton family:

o7YYN2A.jpg

qt3XKw7.jpg


Jeb Bush's family:
WtDh8mV.jpg

eflBfEX.jpg

oDYVkqg.jpg

Looks like a bunch of privileged richers if you ask me.
 

In the same ways Republicans used McCain's black baby to attack him. Before you go on a denial campaign:

Dirty Tricks, South Carolina and John McCain | The Nation

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

It worked. Owing largely to the Rove-orchestrated whispering campaign, Bush prevailed in South Carolina and secured the Republican nomination. The rest is history--specifically the tragic and blighted history of our young century. It worked in another way as well. Too shaken to defend himself, McCain emerged from the bruising episode less maverick reformer and more Manchurian candidate.
 
I voted Jeb just cuz.

In reality, neither looks anymore American than the other. This is a wholly divisive thing to do, and what I'd consider un-American.
 

Republicans have been going hard right on immigration as of late. Jeb has a latino family and more importantly his attitudes on immigration reform are much more moderate, even perhaps a bit to the left of center.
 
Republicans have been going hard right on immigration as of late. Jeb has a latino family and more importantly his attitudes on immigration reform are much more moderate, even perhaps a bit to the left of center.

As far as I know, they've been hard right on immigration for at least a couple of decades (and it isn't legal immigration they oppose- just illegal immigration). I'm not sure that will have anything to do with it. They haven't been putting serious conservatives in for quite some time now.
 
Last edited:
no more dynasties. and ending gerrymandering nationwide should be a top tier priority. our monochromatic duopoly is less than what democracy can achieve.
 
Republicans have been going hard right on immigration as of late. Jeb has a latino family and more importantly his attitudes on immigration reform are much more moderate, even perhaps a bit to the left of center.


That's true, he is wrong on illegals. But all the folks I know who are against illegal aliens are just fine with immigrants of whatever color. In fact, all the republicans I know highly value immigrants as the lifeblood that keep this country strong by refreshing our roots.

On the illegals issue, if both party's candidates are largely the same on the issue, then it becomes a wash and other issues take precedence.
 
no more dynasties. and ending gerrymandering nationwide should be a top tier priority. our monochromatic duopoly is less than what democracy can achieve.

A POTUS doesn't have that power. I doubt a federal congress has the power either. It's firmly in the hands of state legislatures and governors. Gerrymandering has been a part of our system since before the first elections for the US Congress.
 
In the same ways Republicans used McCain's black baby to attack him. Before you go on a denial campaign:

Dirty Tricks, South Carolina and John McCain | The Nation
So you're saying that racism is why?

Herman Cain is one of the "racist" Tea party talking heads and was doing great until The foreign policy Gaffs and Adultery claims came in for his presidential run...
He's still a really popular radio host liked by many... but he was too conservative for moderates.

When are you going to get over that... It is incredibly dishonest to apply one random distasteful negative polling scheme had the majority affect on the South Carolina voters, that same organization said his wife was a drug addict, McCain was gay, and that he was insane because of the torture he endured,, the one you are referencing was only one of the attempts made by the organization. And it obviously has no real legitimacy as an actual poll and it's results ... I get it, they are southern and white, so you think they are majority racist.... try to overcome your'e own racism.

If you are interested in actually knowing history... the reasons for McCain losing was for A LOT of reasons, and no serious academic

McCain Profile: The 'maverick' runs This is a great article.

"Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters, and leading conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh entered the fray supporting Bush and going on at length about how McCain was a favorite of liberal Democrats. Polls swung in Bush's favor; by not accepting federal matching funds for his campaign, Bush was not limited in how much money he could spend on advertisements, while McCain was near his limit. With three days to go, McCain shut down his negative ads against Bush and tried to stress a positive image. But McCain's stressing of campaign finance reform, and how Bush's proposed tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, did not appeal to core Republicans in the state."-wiki

"With polls showing Mr. McCain either behind Mr. Bush or running neck and neck, the senator enters the last days before the crucial South Carolina primary with a serious tactical disadvantage. Not only does Mr. Bush have more money, but he is free to pour unlimited funds into the state because of his decision not to accept federal matching funds. And his own campaign efforts are being supplemented by mailings, phone banks and radio advertisements by an array of conservative groups bitterly opposed to Mr. McCain."http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/16/u...nator-mccain-catches-mud-then-parades-it.html

This is one of the more crass claims I've seen on this board, filled with prejudice.
 
Last edited:
That's true, he is wrong on illegals. But all the folks I know who are against illegal aliens are just fine with immigrants of whatever color. In fact, all the republicans I know highly value immigrants as the lifeblood that keep this country strong by refreshing our roots.

On the illegals issue, if both party's candidates are largely the same on the issue, then it becomes a wash and other issues take precedence.

Yes, immigrants are a wonderful thing when they are legal. Those who respect our laws to enter legally are those you want to see have every opportunity to make this land their home.

Jeb Bush supports open borders and amnesty to illegals. But so does the Chamber of Commerce. I use to blame the Democrats in Congress solely for not getting the fence built and send the needed funds to the border states to secure the border properly. But the truth of the matter is there are a Hell of a lot of Republicans that don't want that fence built or our immigration laws enforced.

Personally I don't think this issue should be a wash between parties. Hopefully the candidate that emerges on the right believes in the rule of law and at least promotes securing the damn border before any discussion on immigration reform. What would be sweet is if someone would just be willing to force the damn laws already on the books.
 
So you're saying that racism is why?

Herman Cain is one of the "racist" Tea party talking heads and was doing great until The foreign policy Gaffs and Adultery claims came in for his presidential run...
He's still a really popular radio host liked by many... but he was too conservative for moderates.

When are you going to get over that... It is incredibly dishonest to apply one random distasteful negative polling scheme had the majority affect on the South Carolina voters, that same organization said his wife was a drug addict, McCain was gay, and that he was insane because of the torture he endured,, the one you are referencing was only one of the attempts made by the organization. And it obviously has no real legitimacy as an actual poll and it's results ... I get it, they are southern and white, so you think they are majority racist.... try to overcome your'e own racism.

If you are interested in actually knowing history... the reasons for McCain losing was for A LOT of reasons, and no serious academic

McCain Profile: The 'maverick' runs This is a great article.

"Bush mobilized the state's evangelical voters, and leading conservative broadcaster Rush Limbaugh entered the fray supporting Bush and going on at length about how McCain was a favorite of liberal Democrats. Polls swung in Bush's favor; by not accepting federal matching funds for his campaign, Bush was not limited in how much money he could spend on advertisements, while McCain was near his limit. With three days to go, McCain shut down his negative ads against Bush and tried to stress a positive image. But McCain's stressing of campaign finance reform, and how Bush's proposed tax cuts would benefit the wealthy, did not appeal to core Republicans in the state."-wiki

"With polls showing Mr. McCain either behind Mr. Bush or running neck and neck, the senator enters the last days before the crucial South Carolina primary with a serious tactical disadvantage. Not only does Mr. Bush have more money, but he is free to pour unlimited funds into the state because of his decision not to accept federal matching funds. And his own campaign efforts are being supplemented by mailings, phone banks and radio advertisements by an array of conservative groups bitterly opposed to Mr. McCain."http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/16/u...nator-mccain-catches-mud-then-parades-it.html

So many strawman arguments, so little time. What was stated is that this piece of information could be used against him, just like it was used against McCain. At no point was it stated that McCain lost because of it or any such nonsense. Now, if you have no more strawman arguments, you're welcome to move along.
 
A POTUS doesn't have that power. I doubt a federal congress has the power either. It's firmly in the hands of state legislatures and governors. Gerrymandering has been a part of our system since before the first elections for the US Congress.

Congress alone can fix it, but they won't fix it. the president could advocate for an obvious solution, but he won't do that, either.
 
Congress alone can fix it, but they won't fix it. the president could advocate for an obvious solution, but he won't do that, either.

Not the federal congress. Gerrymandering precedes them as a state power. Take a look at SCOTUS cases involving gerrymandering. ALL of them take as fact that gerrymandering is a power of STATE legislatures. It is only if the result conflicts with constitutional rights that the cases are heard.

Besides, gerrymandering only affects the People's House (federally).
 
Last edited:
So many strawman arguments, so little time. What was stated is that this piece of information could be used against him, just like it was used against McCain. At no point was it stated that McCain lost because of it or any such nonsense. Now, if you have no more strawman arguments, you're welcome to move along.

"That could hurt Jeb in the primaries."
As Jeb Bush is a Republican Candidate with a diverse family background... this comment leads me to assume it means that since the racial bigotry of republican voters , it would hurt Jeb in the primary.

Your reply to "How so?" suggested that you thought your example proved racial bigotry in the state of South Carolina. Which only confirms my first assumption.

If this is not your intention, then please clarify.... but seeing as how you replied to the conversation that is the only logical assumption. I'm reading between your lines.

I showed that that occurrence had little to no affect with McCain losing South Carolina.... so it wasn't effectively used against him, but it is an effective tool to slander Southern republicans.
 
Last edited:
A POTUS doesn't have that power. I doubt a federal congress has the power either. It's firmly in the hands of state legislatures and governors. Gerrymandering has been a part of our system since before the first elections for the US Congress.

Article 1 Sect 4 Clause 1 gives the Congress the power to step in a legislate the manner of elections.
 
Not the federal congress. Gerrymandering precedes them as a state power. Take a look at SCOTUS cases involving gerrymandering. ALL of them take as fact that gerrymandering is a power of STATE legislatures. It is only if the result conflicts with constitutional rights that the cases are heard.

Besides, gerrymandering only affects the People's House.

gerrymandering should be eliminated federally by redrawing all districts using only census data. that's the way to fix the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom