• 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: Bush vs Clinton

Who is your favorite?

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 22 62.9%
  • Jeb Bush

    Votes: 13 37.1%

  • Total voters
    35
Cannot vote since a third option is missing.

I've had enough of both names and I don't cotton much to the concept of dynasties. It's not the United Kingdom of America, is it?
 
Well it doesn't seem to happen to the Democrats as they don't seem to expect anything of their candidates other than they are reasonable leftwing and have a D after their name. Character, track record, accomplishments, demonstrated ability to get things done etc. don't seem to matter much.

But until the people who vote GOP, regardless of how they self-identify, develop a backbone and are willing to demonstrate strength of character and conviction by standing up and speaking out for what they want and expect from those we entrust with leadership, I fear we will continue to 'settle' for a vanilla flavor that gives everybody just a little of what they say they want but can't or won't deliver on the campaign rhetoric. And that means holding our noses when we vote.

To the bolded. That's far too hyperbolic and too broadly critical to even respond to. To the rest, make the republicans and the democrats sit one out. Vote third party.
 
To the bolded. That's far too hyperbolic and too broadly critical to even respond to. To the rest, make the republicans and the democrats sit one out. Vote third party.

I can appreciate how it looks that way, but the statement was more objective than you give credit. :) You can look at the candidates that the Democrats nominate and elect President. People with little or no credentials and/or track record, people of questionable character, dubious background, etc. Obama was such a candidate but he was nominated and elected. And despite his miserable track record in his first term nevertheless was re-elected in 2012. And now Hillary with similar lack of any kind of admirable track record and definitely of dubious character is the presumed nominee and winner in 2016. All this points to the Democrats setting the bar very very low for their chosen leaders and the D after the name seems to be all that is really important.

The GOP has its own problems with fecklessness. It is just somewhat different from that of the Democrats.
 
Cannot vote since a third option is missing.

I've had enough of both names and I don't cotton much to the concept of dynasties. It's not the United Kingdom of America, is it?

I think a lot of us would prefer different names to choose from. But if those are the names we do have to choose from and therefore one or the other will be President, wouldn't the honorable thing be to vote for the one who would be less damaging to the country ?
 
I think a lot of us would prefer different names to choose from. But if those are the names we do have to choose from and therefore one or the other will be President, wouldn't the honorable thing be to vote for the one who would be less damaging to the country ?
It certainly would.

Problem being that discernment is somewhat difficult still.
 
It certainly would.

Problem being that discernment is somewhat difficult still.

Not for me. There is no question that the one who chooses the least government interference and meddling is the one who will do the least damage.
 
I can appreciate how it looks that way, but the statement was more objective than you give credit. :) You can look at the candidates that the Democrats nominate and elect President. People with little or no credentials and/or track record, people of questionable character, dubious background, etc. Obama was such a candidate but he was nominated and elected. And despite his miserable track record in his first term nevertheless was re-elected in 2012. And now Hillary with similar lack of any kind of admirable track record and definitely of dubious character is the presumed nominee and winner in 2016. All this points to the Democrats setting the bar very very low for their chosen leaders and the D after the name seems to be all that is really important.

The GOP has its own problems with fecklessness. It is just somewhat different from that of the Democrats.

Ok, thanks AlbqOwl. So that's just too partisan for me. There's good people and bad people in both parties, there's fair and decent people in both parties, there's scalawags in both parties, people of dubious character in both parties. There's a long list of Washington elites/politicians from both parties that have been convicted of crimes. The only thing that differs in the two parties is ideologies. Other than that, one is not superior to the other. What would actually be nice is for American voters to hold there own accountable. If we are concerned about what's good for America as paramount to what's good for our party (ideological) affiliation, we might get this right some day.

And criticize Obama all you wish, he didn't arrive in Washington of questionable character or dubious background.
 
Ok, thanks AlbqOwl. So that's just too partisan for me. There's good people and bad people in both parties, there's fair and decent people in both parties, there's scalawags in both parties, people of dubious character in both parties. There's a long list of Washington elites/politicians from both parties that have been convicted of crimes. The only thing that differs in the two parties is ideologies. Other than that, one is not superior to the other. What would actually be nice is for American voters to hold there own accountable. If we are concerned about what's good for America as paramount to what's good for our party (ideological) affiliation, we might get this right some day.

And criticize Obama all you wish, he didn't arrive in Washington of questionable character or dubious background.

If you see my post as partisan, there isn't much left to say. Because it absolutely is not.

And perhaps you can show what Barack and Michelle Obama, both claiming to come from humble backgrounds of limited means and saddled with oppressive student loans, did to allow them to bid $1.65 million for their Chicago home? How does an obscure and unknown community organizer vault to the board chairmanship at Annenburg? And even Factcheck.org can't remove the smell from the subsequent Rezko deal. The murky relationship with Bill Ayers. Barack Obama and William Ayers-Truth! The 20 year association with Rev. Wright of the Trinity UCC who Obama said was his mentor and father figure until that scandal broke and then it seems the President never heard a single sermon Wright ever preached as he never heard the anti-American, liberation theology regularly preached in that church. Perhaps you can point to a single noteworthy accomplishment Obama can point to in his entire adult life.

I think questionable character and dubious background is being pretty charitable as it does allow for some benefit of the doubt.

I would like all Americans to demand a whole lot more transparency and honesty and expect a whole lot more from those we entrust with leadership positions.
 
If you see my post as partisan, there isn't much left to say. Because it absolutely is not.

And perhaps you can show what Barack and Michelle Obama, both claiming to come from humble backgrounds of limited means and saddled with oppressive student loans, did to allow them to bid $1.65 million for their Chicago home? How does an obscure and unknown community organizer vault to the board chairmanship at Annenburg? And even Factcheck.org can't remove the smell from the subsequent Rezko deal. The murky relationship with Bill Ayers. Barack Obama and William Ayers-Truth! The 20 year association with Rev. Wright of the Trinity UCC who Obama said was his mentor and father figure until that scandal broke and then it seems the President never heard a single sermon Wright ever preached as he never heard the anti-American, liberation theology regularly preached in that church. Perhaps you can point to a single noteworthy accomplishment Obama can point to in his entire adult life.

I think questionable character and dubious background is being pretty charitable as it does allow for some benefit of the doubt.

I would like all Americans to demand a whole lot more transparency and honesty and expect a whole lot more from those we entrust with leadership positions.

Birds of a feather.:lamo
 
If you see my post as partisan, there isn't much left to say. Because it absolutely is not.

And perhaps you can show what Barack and Michelle Obama, both claiming to come from humble backgrounds of limited means and saddled with oppressive student loans, did to allow them to bid $1.65 million for their Chicago home? How does an obscure and unknown community organizer vault to the board chairmanship at Annenburg? And even Factcheck.org can't remove the smell from the subsequent Rezko deal. The murky relationship with Bill Ayers. Barack Obama and William Ayers-Truth! The 20 year association with Rev. Wright of the Trinity UCC who Obama said was his mentor and father figure until that scandal broke and then it seems the President never heard a single sermon Wright ever preached as he never heard the anti-American, liberation theology regularly preached in that church. Perhaps you can point to a single noteworthy accomplishment Obama can point to in his entire adult life.

I think questionable character and dubious background is being pretty charitable as it does allow for some benefit of the doubt.

I would like all Americans to demand a whole lot more transparency and honesty and expect a whole lot more from those we entrust with leadership positions.

What???!!! It's as partisan as the day is long. You broad brushed an entire party, presumably all liberal progressive voters as questionable and dubious of character only interested in sending the like to Washington. How am I suppose to deal with that. And presumably, in contrast, conservatives are only interested in voting in ethical and moral politicians that execute their duties in strict adherence to the constitution. That's terribly patronizing. Otherwise, perhaps you can point me to a clean politician, ANYWHERE!
 
What???!!! It's as partisan as the day is long. You broad brushed an entire party, presumably all liberal progressive voters as questionable and dubious of character only interested in sending the like to Washington. How am I suppose to deal with that. And presumably, in contrast, conservatives are only interested in voting in ethical and moral politicians that execute their duties in strict adherence to the constitution. That's terribly patronizing. Otherwise, perhaps you can point me to a clean politician, ANYWHERE!

It isn't patronizing at all. It is an honest observation of what a particular political party has done. More than once. And presumably intends to do again.
 
It isn't patronizing at all. It is an honest observation of what a particular political party has done. More than once. And presumably intends to do again.

They both have done, and will again, so long as American voters retain their loyalty to the elephant and the ass over their country.
 
Bush is far more likely to win the nomination than the Cankled Hildabeast

both suck, she sucks worse
 
Bush is far more likely to win the nomination than the Cankled Hildabeast

both suck, she sucks worse

Is there some reason you feel necessary to talk about the physical appearance of female candidates and not male ones?
 
Is there some reason you feel necessary to talk about the physical appearance of female candidates and not male ones?

I don't think there is anything about Jeb that makes me want to puke

and it pisses off many on the left!
 
Where's the "Oh my God - I'm so sick of BOTH families" option?
 
I'm still waiting for the footnote from GOP partisans of their blatant false-equivalency in wanting to remove the top DEM candidate along with a GOP candidate who's one of at least a half dozen with a shot at their nomination by using the broadest of strokes to eliminate two families.

Does this count for JEB's son and HRC's daughter also ?
 
I'm still waiting for the footnote from GOP partisans of their blatant false-equivalency in wanting to remove the top DEM candidate along with a GOP candidate who's one of at least a half dozen with a shot at their nomination by using the broadest of strokes to eliminate two families.

Does this count for JEB's son and HRC's daughter also ?

I have no idea what this means

please clarify it
 
I don't think there is anything about Jeb that makes me want to puke

and it pisses off many on the left!

So you don't find it interesting that people talk about the physical appearance of female politicians way, way more than they do about male politicians?
 
So you don't find it interesting that people talk about the physical appearance of female politicians way, way more than they do about male politicians?

you are just figuring that out?
 
Hillary will make the campaign about gender, because that's all she's got.
 
Hillary will make the campaign about gender, because that's all she's got.

and getting Slick Willy and his moist cigar back into the WH. Most of the Hildabeat fans are really pining for 8 more years of Slickster
 
It will be a competition between two dynasties in the United States. It will be very interesting, so, which one is your favorite?

Can I vote "none of the above" please?
 
Hillary puts Warren on her ticket and she wins a 300 electoral landslide, when the money starts pouring in for HC next year she will put the pedal on the medal..

ALSO in Presidential years the Dems benefit from huge turnout, the Dems will take back the senate too..
 
Back
Top Bottom