• 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!

With eye on 2016, Jeb Bush resigns from all boards


Mitt has a big problem with that 49% stuff (I don't remember the exact figure). I know he never ran for public office, but if Republicans could find someone like James Baker, I honestly think I would vote Republican for the first time. Actually I wanted to give them a chance last time, they just could not put forward a candidate to my liking. Mitt has some major work to do, if I were to vote for him.
 
Although I have not looked at him in great detail, I could consider Rand Paul if it were not for that stuff with the government shutdown. But I say that merely because at times he says stuff that I like. But that government shutdown stuff was gross. Can't even consider him after that.
 
Herbert Walker was ok, but that was because he had a man like James Baker to keep things in proper perspective. Dubya was a total disaster. What this country needs right now is someone like James Baker at the helm.
 
I can understand that. But sometimes if one gains 50% of the value one wants and stand for is better than nothing at all. Your pragmatic presidents understood this. Of course there are some issues where one wouldn't compromise, so it all depends on the issue.

But then the establishment republicans on most agreements they have made with the democrats have not managed to get anywhere near 50%. In some cases that failed to get 1%. They basically just bent over.
 
Mitt has a big problem with that 49% stuff (I don't remember the exact figure). I know he never ran for public office, but if Republicans could find someone like James Baker, I honestly think I would vote Republican for the first time. Actually I wanted to give them a chance last time, they just could not put forward a candidate to my liking. Mitt has some major work to do, if I were to vote for him.
Having a competent President is more important that any off the cuff comments about 49%, or whatever the figure was. That was blown out of all proportion by the leftist msm, but it worked.
 
Having a competent President is more important that any off the cuff comments about 49%, or whatever the figure was. That was blown out of all proportion by the leftist msm, but it worked.

Well the left certainly took advantage of it. But off the cuff statements sometimes reveal quite a bit about a person. Do you think it reflects well on the President of the United States to view almost half of the population with contempt? Yes it's important to have a competent President, but it is also important to have a President who knows how to respect and appreciate the humanity of others. At least that's how I see it.
 
I think that if Bush and Clinton both are the nominees it won't be because of them being the better candidates it will be a narrative that the media had gradually pushed towards. They very well could be the best nominees (not likely) out of the choices presented, that part doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative for the media. I can almost guarantee that both of their campaigns can be far less funded than Obama's ever was and they both could still become the nominees.
 
Well the left certainly took advantage of it. But off the cuff statements sometimes reveal quite a bit about a person. Do you think it reflects well on the President of the United States to view almost half of the population with contempt? Yes it's important to have a competent President, but it is also important to have a President who knows how to respect and appreciate the humanity of others. At least that's how I see it.
He was speaking the truth. The 'contempt' was a fiction of the media and Obama supporters.

Anyone who would re-elect an obvious failure like Barrack Obama because of a comment like that certainly deserves to suffer the consequences, but the rest of the country, and indeed the world, has had to suffer along with them. Making something like this an election issue rather than foreign policy, energy policies, education, and so on, trivializes the electoral system, as well as the American people themselves.
 
I think that if Bush and Clinton both are the nominees it won't be because of them being the better candidates it will be a narrative that the media had gradually pushed towards. They very well could be the best nominees (not likely) out of the choices presented, that part doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative for the media. I can almost guarantee that both of their campaigns can be far less funded than Obama's ever was and they both could still become the nominees.
The left and MSM, really the same, will decide the issues just as they did with the 'War on Women'. So far it would seem to be 'White Privilege', which is emergency as the next target or "Income Redistribution". Emotional domestic issues like these are what will fire up their base.
 
He was speaking the truth. The 'contempt' was a fiction of the media and Obama supporters.

Anyone who would re-elect an obvious failure like Barrack Obama because of a comment like that certainly deserves to suffer the consequences, but the rest of the country, and indeed the world, has had to suffer along with them. Making something like this an election issue rather than foreign policy, energy policies, education, and so on, trivializes the electoral system, as well as the American people themselves.

Just so I know for sure, what exactly was he speaking the truth about?
 
Well the left certainly took advantage of it. But off the cuff statements sometimes reveal quite a bit about a person. Do you think it reflects well on the President of the United States to view almost half of the population with contempt? Yes it's important to have a competent President, but it is also important to have a President who knows how to respect and appreciate the humanity of others. At least that's how I see it.
And tell us how the current president respects his opposition. Also, what is contemptible about speaking the truth?
 
Well the left certainly took advantage of it. But off the cuff statements sometimes reveal quite a bit about a person. Do you think it reflects well on the President of the United States to view almost half of the population with contempt? Yes it's important to have a competent President, but it is also important to have a President who knows how to respect and appreciate the humanity of others. At least that's how I see it.
I didnt see any 'contempt'. He was just stating the facts and the difficulties he had to over come. His assessment was correct.

Telling the truth is quite different from 'contempt', though of course it was being sold that way.
 
Did you not listen to the comments? If he was incorrect, point it out.

I heard them. I honestly don't remember exactly what he said. I thought I would give you a chance to pinpoint exactly what you felt was true so that we could discuss.

But to take a shot at it, as I recall, he was essentially saying that 40 something percent of the population wants the government and/or others to do things for them. Something like that. In my opinion, 100 percent of the population wants the government and/or others to do something for them.

But you may recall better what he said. I'm not going to go listen to it again.
 
And tell us how the current president respects his opposition. Also, what is contemptible about speaking the truth?

Well early in his first term, he did try to reach out to them. And I don't recall him ever making a remark, that implies that his opponents were good for nothing moochers.

There is nothing contemptible about the truth. However, sometimes the motivation for speaking the truth can be contempt.
 
I didnt see any 'contempt'. He was just stating the facts and the difficulties he had to over come. His assessment was correct.

Telling the truth is quite different from 'contempt', though of course it was being sold that way.

Perhaps he was calling it as he saw it. Perhaps he was saying it to appeal to a certain class of voters to make them feel better than others so that he could get their votes. Politicians do that type of thing. Regardless, I think it is likely that he told a partial truth only, not the whole truth. But as I said before, I don't recall EXACTLY what he said, and I am not going to look it up.
 
Perhaps he was calling it as he saw it. Perhaps he was saying it to appeal to a certain class of voters to make them feel better than others so that he could get their votes. Politicians do that type of thing. Regardless, I think it is likely that he told a partial truth only, not the whole truth. But as I said before, I don't recall EXACTLY what he said, and I am not going to look it up.
This lesson is repeated so often in politics, by politicians and their handlers, that perception is reality. In this case your 'perception' is your 'truth'.

Of course you don't recall what was said, few do, and have no interest in understanding what was said, few do that as well, yet you understand the meaning to be 'contempt', and you probably took your 'perception' to the voting booth.
 
Really? Another Bush, possibly another Clinton? What has happened to this great nation? Is this the best out of all the people in this country we can do? Or are we just subjects to a ruling class elite who could give a **** about you or me?


Sad reality is, there are those cheering for these royals and thier race for power.

To be honest Rev, both have what it takes to be the president family heritage aside. Of course I would not vote for Hillary, as she is a little to far left for me. I would vote for Jeb Bush without a second thought though.
 
This lesson is repeated so often in politics, by politicians and their handlers, that perception is reality. In this case your 'perception' is your 'truth'.

Of course you don't recall what was said, few do, and have no interest in understanding what was said, few do that as well, yet you understand the meaning to be 'contempt', and you probably took your 'perception' to the voting booth.

You are truthful that you say my perception is my truth. But I did admit truthfully that I do not remember exactly what was said. But I what I said in terms of the gist of it is fairly accurate. But since you want to discuss it. Let's indeed go and let everyone see what he said, EXACTLY. In his own words. Let's see if can find it, because I really don't want to be unfair to him.



You know, I am going to give you some points for this. Although there may be a slight bit of contempt there, it is not what I thought. Good point! "A" for you brother! That's for pointing that out!

That said however, I do not think that what he said was totally true. My understanding is that one can pay no income tax for many reasons. Not simply because they are poor and need government assistance. That is one thing. The next thing is that he is inaccurate to assume that those people who want they government to do something for them, necessarily like for it to be that way. Of course he did not say that. But he does seem to imply that. What if they have been recently laid off? Of course, if you didn't have any source of steady income coming in, you would want to get government assistance if you were legally entitled to it. There is nothing wrong with that. But the contempt is this. There is the subtle, though not openly stated idea that is put forward that somehow, requesting and expecting government assistance is contemptible. I do get that.

That said, you point is well taken, and believe me, I appreciate you pointing that out because I did indeed distort it.

Indeed, I cheerfully accept your criticism of me here.
 
You are truthful that you say my perception is my truth. But I did admit truthfully that I do not remember exactly what was said. But I what I said in terms of the gist of it is fairly accurate. But since you want to discuss it. Let's indeed go and let everyone see what he said, EXACTLY. In his own words. Let's see if can find it, because I really don't want to be unfair to him.



You know, I am going to give you some points for this. Although there may be a slight bit of contempt there, it is not what I thought. Good point! "A" for you brother! That's for pointing that out!

That said however, I do not think that what he said was totally true. My understanding is that one can pay no income tax for many reasons. Not simply because they are poor and need government assistance. That is one thing. The next thing is that he is inaccurate to assume that those people who want they government to do something for them, necessarily like for it to be that way. Of course he did not say that. But he does seem to imply that. What if they have been recently laid off? Of course, if you didn't have any source of steady income coming in, you would want to get government assistance if you were legally entitled to it. There is nothing wrong with that. But the contempt is this. There is the subtle, though not openly stated idea that is put forward that somehow, requesting and expecting government assistance is contemptible. I do get that.

That said, you point is well taken, and believe me, I appreciate you pointing that out because I did indeed distort it.

Indeed, I cheerfully accept your criticism of me here.
That was very impressive, and thank you. But it was not my intention to be critical of you personally as you did nothing to offend. I was just making an observation about people in general, and we all do what you did. Cheers!
 
To be honest Rev, both have what it takes to be the president family heritage aside. Of course I would not vote for Hillary, as she is a little to far left for me. I would vote for Jeb Bush without a second thought though.




I think almost no-one in washington has what it takes, but I digress. ;)
 
I think almost no-one in washington has what it takes, but I digress. ;)

See that is the problem... They have what it takes... They however choose to go down the path of evil, lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom