Dubya vs The Donald

I should have started this thread weeks ago when I first got the notion so people wouldn't think it is about Steve Bannon taking on Dubya all over the place, here's a link...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-bush-presidency-most-destructive/787160001/

Although I may somewhat agree with Bannon...what I wanted to address is the level of support between Dubya and The Donald on discussion forums.

I wasn't on this site so, I'm curious to hear from those who were here back in the days of Dubya...was there more enthusiasm for the support of Dubya back then, than there is for The Donald now?

Or am I simply comparing my experience in a more conservative arena, which had a higher percentage of rightwingnuts, to a totally different environment?

Of those identifying their lean, we are supposedly in an environment consisting of more conservatives than liberals and yet they seem to have very little spirit for defending the conservative prez...could it just be that their problem is obvious?

.

I never thought I'd say this, but despite not agreeing with him much politically, I desperately miss the good ol' days of having a rational adult in the White House.



Yes, I think we finally do.

AYSM said:

I should have started this thread weeks ago when I first got the notion so people wouldn't think it is about Steve Bannon taking on Dubya all over the place, here's a link...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-bush-presidency-most-destructive/787160001/

Although I may somewhat agree with Bannon...what I wanted to address is the level of support between Dubya and The Donald on discussion forums.

I wasn't on this site so, I'm curious to hear from those who were here back in the days of Dubya...was there more enthusiasm for the support of Dubya back then, than there is for The Donald now?

Or am I simply comparing my experience in a more conservative arena, which had a higher percentage of rightwingnuts, to a totally different environment?

Of those identifying their lean, we are supposedly in an environment consisting of more conservatives than liberals and yet they seem to have very little spirit for defending the conservative prez...could it just be that their problem is obvious?

.

Click to expand...

Goerge W. Bush & Trump = two of the worst POTUS in the history of the US, period ............. they could have been brothers ............ twins even ............

cuban smokes said:

Goerge W. Bush & Trump = two of the worst POTUS in the history of the US, period ............. they could have been brothers ............ twins even ............

Click to expand...

The USA MSM agenda is so overwhelmingly oppressive that there are still people that don't realisze that GWBush is a true War Criminal on a par with Nazis. His lies and agenda caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He does seem to share twin qualities with Trump, i.e., clueless, no focus, born with silver spoon up the anus, sees Corporate/can't see people, has no vision, and it is a crying shame but either one is a better option than Hillary. What a strange World we live in, eh? It's all OK, the militarized local Police Forces will CONTROL the citizens.
/

AYSM said:

I should have started this thread weeks ago when I first got the notion so people wouldn't think it is about Steve Bannon taking on Dubya all over the place, here's a link...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-bush-presidency-most-destructive/787160001/

Although I may somewhat agree with Bannon...what I wanted to address is the level of support between Dubya and The Donald on discussion forums.

I wasn't on this site so, I'm curious to hear from those who were here back in the days of Dubya...was there more enthusiasm for the support of Dubya back then, than there is for The Donald now?

Or am I simply comparing my experience in a more conservative arena, which had a higher percentage of rightwingnuts, to a totally different environment?

Of those identifying their lean, we are supposedly in an environment consisting of more conservatives than liberals and yet they seem to have very little spirit for defending the conservative prez...could it just be that their problem is obvious?

.

Click to expand...

I think the current divisive culture in America was already developing in the Bush era, but in many ways it was more "typical" than what we see with Trump.

Bush maintained pretty good marks with conservatives, for the most part. Liberals hated him, obviously. He was a departure in the sense that he was more outrighly appealing to a highly religious base than presidents we'd seen recently, but there was nothing out-of-this-world nuts about him.

Trump is far more divisive than that I think. Trump's approval ratings have been the most narrowly focused of any president in half a century, meaning that people aren't changing their opinions on him over time or as events change.

I think the face of conservatism itself is changing. Trump isn't conservative by any sensible metric that's applied at any point in my lifetime, and still doesn't apply to most of the party. But the people who voted for him -- minority though they may be -- are siding with him over the party.

There are also some more classic conservatives who are unprecidentedly loud about their disapproval. I've never seen such staunch conservatives take such a hard line against one of their own. Cpwill is a good example, here on DP. Vocal since day one. I've seen conservatives not be very excited about a candidate or politician, certainly, but not to the point where they seem to hate them just as much as liberals do.

In a weird way, it's sort of Trumpsters against everyone else -- liberals and classic conservatives both. Trump supportes are a minority, but the gulf between their perception of him and everyone else's is more massive than I've ever seen.

At this point, America basically breaks down 30/30/40 (Dems/GOP/Indp. voters). So what seems to be happening is classic conservatives are being pushed into the independent pool.

Bush never made it a point to single out minorities like Trump has been doing. Bush also never attacked the media or accused every negative report on him to be "fake news." Bush was actually likeable, even if you hated his policies. Trump isn't likeable even if you agree with the gist of his policies.

RabidAlpaca said:

I never thought I'd say this, but despite not agreeing with him much politically, I desperately miss the good ol' days of having a rational adult in the White House.

Yes, I think we finally do.

Click to expand...

What about Barry?

DaveFagan said:

The USA MSM agenda is so overwhelmingly oppressive that there are still people that don't realisze that GWBush is a true War Criminal on a par with Nazis. His lies and agenda caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He does seem to share twin qualities with Trump, i.e., clueless, no focus, born with silver spoon up the anus, sees Corporate/can't see people, has no vision, and it is a crying shame but either one is a better option than Hillary. What a strange World we live in, eh? It's all OK, the militarized local Police Forces will CONTROL the citizens.
/

Click to expand...

You can throw Reagan into that mix. They were relentless calling him the same names.

All part of politics now.

WCH said:

You can throw Reagan into that mix. They were relentless calling him the same names.

All part of politics now.

Click to expand...

Pretty clear that the 'news' (political propaganda) media has been placing political and agenda before the business of actual journalism for quite some time now.

As you've observed, it stretches all the back the Regan era.

calamity said:

Bush never made it a point to single out minorities like Trump has been doing. Bush also never attacked the media or accused every negative report on him to be "fake news." Bush was actually likeable, even if you hated his policies. Trump isn't likeable even if you agree with the gist of his policies.

Click to expand...

Remember when GW used the term "Crusade" to refer to his War on Terror?
The left, me included, howled. I predicted he'd never repeat that term, thinking he was smart enough to realize the error. He was that smart and he never repeated it.
The know-nothings cried 'Political Correctness". I suspect those same know-nothings are today's Trump supporters.

DaveFagan said:

The USA MSM agenda is so overwhelmingly oppressive that there are still people that don't realisze that GWBush is a true War Criminal on a par with Nazis. His lies and agenda caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. He does seem to share twin qualities with Trump, i.e., clueless, no focus, born with silver spoon up the anus, sees Corporate/can't see people, has no vision, and it is a crying shame but either one is a better option than Hillary. What a strange World we live in, eh? It's all OK, the militarized local Police Forces will CONTROL the citizens.
/

Click to expand...

Americans (generally) don't give a **** about dead Iraqis; AFA that goes most don't seem to give a **** about dead Americans ........

eohrnberger said:

Pretty clear that the 'news' (political propaganda) media has been placing political and agenda before the business of actual journalism for quite some time now.

As you've observed, it stretches all the back the Regan era.

Click to expand...

After they lost their monopoly on the 'truth'.

calamity said:

Bush never made it a point to single out minorities like Trump has been doing. Bush also never attacked the media or accused every negative report on him to be "fake news." Bush was actually likeable, even if you hated his policies. Trump isn't likeable even if you agree with the gist of his policies.

Click to expand...

a lot of people have died because of Bush stupid and pointless wars.

katzgar said:

a lot of people have died because of Bush stupid and pointless wars.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't have happened had not the idiots voted in all those Republicans in 2002. Everyone knew that electing them would lead to war. But, we did it anyway.

katzgar said:

a lot of people have died because of Bush stupid and pointless wars.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just Bush acting alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

WCH said:

It wasn't just Bush acting alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Click to expand...

Without the 2/3 necessary, no war.

WCH said:

It wasn't just Bush acting alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Click to expand...

Liberals like to pretend they weren't in favor of both wars or that the claims of Iraq WMD's weren't just as loud during the Clinton administration.

AYSM said:

Although I may somewhat agree with Bannon...what I wanted to address is the level of support between Dubya and The Donald on discussion forums.

I wasn't on this site so, I'm curious to hear from those who were here back in the days of Dubya...was there more enthusiasm for the support of Dubya back then, than there is for The Donald now?

Click to expand...

As I recall it, there were some who supported Bush who were every bit as nuts as those who support Trump, but there were not as many, and they were not as vocal. Most Bush supporters, while not models of principled debate, were saner than Trump supporters. Trump supporters will, it seems, call anything fake news (including video of Trump saying something), blame someone else for something that Trump clearly did, or otherwise create their own reality and try to substitute it for the one we generally know. I didn't get the sense with Bush supporters on these boards that they lived in their own separate world--Bush supporters just saw the same world very differently. Trump supporters seem truly to inhabit a different world than the rest of us.

That said, I don't get a sense that the enthusiasm was any more or less among Bush supporters than it is among Trump supporters.

Fletch said:

Liberals like to pretend they weren't in favor of both wars or that the claims of Iraq WMD's weren't just as loud during the Clinton administration.

Click to expand...

They pass the buck as well as any group.

WCH said:

After they lost their monopoly on the 'truth'.

Click to expand...

High time, I'd say. Let's just hope that whomever or whatever becomes the next more generally accepted source of truth is more honest than they.

AYSM said:

I should have started this thread weeks ago when I first got the notion so people wouldn't think it is about Steve Bannon taking on Dubya all over the place, here's a link...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...w-bush-presidency-most-destructive/787160001/

Although I may somewhat agree with Bannon...what I wanted to address is the level of support between Dubya and The Donald on discussion forums.

I wasn't on this site so, I'm curious to hear from those who were here back in the days of Dubya...was there more enthusiasm for the support of Dubya back then, than there is for The Donald now?

Or am I simply comparing my experience in a more conservative arena, which had a higher percentage of rightwingnuts, to a totally different environment?

Of those identifying their lean, we are supposedly in an environment consisting of more conservatives than liberals and yet they seem to have very little spirit for defending the conservative prez...could it just be that their problem is obvious?

.

Click to expand...

I wasn't here when G.W. was president, but I arrived when Obama was. Defending G.W. from those here on the left was done hot and heavy and with great enthusiasm. One got the impression there hadn't ever been a better conservative president. Those conservatives, the right had more praise for G.W. than even Reagan. Of course I suppose a lot of those who supported G.W. weren't around or too young to remember Reagan.

I know of a few who were hot supporters of G.W. who are now avid supporters of Trump. But quite a lot of those who now support Trump, I don't remember them back then. I classify myself as a Goldwater conservative with some of Perot thrown in. In other words a more traditional conservative than a neo-conservative or a social or religious conservative. For myself, I considered G.W. more of a religious/social conservative than a traditional or neo-conservative. Trump, I don't consider him as a conservative at all. Even most of his supporters during the primaries referred to Trump as a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist, anything but a conservative. Seems that is changing since the election. I view the eight time party switcher as an opportunist whose life long political views were pretty liberal. Of course he change some to run as a Republican.

As a traditional conservative, I was comfortable with G.W. I can't say the same for Trump. I would say G.W. was more of a real conservative whereas I tend to view Trump as the fake conservative. Even so, I'm not going to take sides in the G.W. vs. Trump feud. G.W. is gone, Trump is. But I don't think that a lot of those who defended G.W. while Obama was president when the left attacked him will defend him against Trump. Perhaps they too has moved on.

WCH said:

What about Barry?

Click to expand...

Co-Presidents Bush-43/Obama would suit me fine. I'd even take Pence with Ryan as VP ...

Perotista said:

I wasn't here when G.W. was president, but I arrived when Obama was. Defending G.W. from those here on the left was done hot and heavy and with great enthusiasm. One got the impression there hadn't ever been a better conservative president. Those conservatives, the right had more praise for G.W. than even Reagan. Of course I suppose a lot of those who supported G.W. weren't around or too young to remember Reagan.

I know of a few who were hot supporters of G.W. who are now avid supporters of Trump. But quite a lot of those who now support Trump, I don't remember them back then. I classify myself as a Goldwater conservative with some of Perot thrown in. In other words a more traditional conservative than a neo-conservative or a social or religious conservative. For myself, I considered G.W. more of a religious/social conservative than a traditional or neo-conservative. Trump, I don't consider him as a conservative at all. Even most of his supporters during the primaries referred to Trump as a populist, a nationalist, even a nativist, anything but a conservative. Seems that is changing since the election. I view the eight time party switcher as an opportunist whose life long political views were pretty liberal. Of course he change some to run as a Republican.

As a traditional conservative, I was comfortable with G.W. I can't say the same for Trump. I would say G.W. was more of a real conservative whereas I tend to view Trump as the fake conservative. Even so, I'm not going to take sides in the G.W. vs. Trump feud. G.W. is gone, Trump is. But I don't think that a lot of those who defended G.W. while Obama was president when the left attacked him will defend him against Trump. Perhaps they too has moved on.

Click to expand...

Whether you want to admit it or not, most of the same Republicans who voted for Bush also voted for Trump. As for Bush vs Trump, remember that Trump back when he was a registered Democrat was one of Bush's most outspoken critics. You can find many videos on youtube of Trump criticizing Bush's policies, calling him the worst president ever, etc. I don't think Bush has forgotten that, and is probably wondering why so many Republicans voted for a guy who not too long ago was a Democrat, and pro Hillary Clinton.

Puigb said:

Whether you want to admit it or not, most of the same Republicans who voted for Bush also voted for Trump. As for Bush vs Trump, remember that Trump back when he was a registered Democrat was one of Bush's most outspoken critics. You can find many videos on youtube of Trump criticizing Bush's policies, calling him the worst president ever, etc. I don't think Bush has forgotten that, and is probably wondering why so many Republicans voted for a guy who not too long ago was a Democrat, and pro Hillary Clinton.

Click to expand...

And the plot thickens. I've been thinking, which can be dangerous. Trump spent a year in my tiny Reform Party which wasn't so tiny back in 2000 running for the Reform Party's presidential nomination. Isn't it strange that Trump tends to gravitate to the party that doesn't hold the White House. During Reagan Trump was a Democrat, during Bill Clinton he was a Republican, during G.W. Bush he became a Democrat again. During Obama Trump became a Republican again with a year spent as an independent. Could Trump have spent all that time and party switching looking for an opportunity to run for the presidency? Of course it all could be just a coincident.

So it seems G.W. and Trump have a long history, I didn't realize that. I was also curious as to the percentage of Republicans who voted for G.W. compared to Trump. 91% of Republicans voted for G.W. in 2000, 93% in 2004. 88% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2016 and to round it out, 93% of republicans vote for Romney in 2012. Not that much difference, party loyalty I suppose. But there is a difference. 90% is the historical average of voters who affiliate or identify with a political party voting for their candidate/s.

Interesting info on G.W. vs. Trump though.

Perotista said:

And the plot thickens. I've been thinking, which can be dangerous. Trump spent a year in my tiny Reform Party which wasn't so tiny back in 2000 running for the Reform Party's presidential nomination. Isn't it strange that Trump tends to gravitate to the party that doesn't hold the White House. During Reagan Trump was a Democrat, during Bill Clinton he was a Republican, during G.W. Bush he became a Democrat again. During Obama Trump became a Republican again with a year spent as an independent. Could Trump have spent all that time and party switching looking for an opportunity to run for the presidency? Of course it all could be just a coincident.

So it seems G.W. and Trump have a long history, I didn't realize that. I was also curious as to the percentage of Republicans who voted for G.W. compared to Trump. 91% of Republicans voted for G.W. in 2000, 93% in 2004. 88% of Republicans voted for Trump in 2016 and to round it out, 93% of republicans vote for Romney in 2012. Not that much difference, party loyalty I suppose. But there is a difference. 90% is the historical average of voters who affiliate or identify with a political party voting for their candidate/s.

Interesting info on G.W. vs. Trump though.

Click to expand...

Trump has definitely been wanting to run for president for a long time, and was looking for the right opportunity to do it. I believe the Democrats should be thanking their lucky stars that Trump ultimately ran as a Republican, because he's literally tearing that party apart. Even though the Republicans have the white house, the senate, and the house, they can barely get anything done because how divided they are, with Trump causing a lot of that division within the party.