Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:28 am

I would say Jeb Bush. You?
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8736
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:07 pm

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):

Care to defend?
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:30 pm

Question: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Answer: Not America
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3542
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:37 pm

I don't think either will win. They both have too much baggage. I almost feel they both think they deserve it because of their last names. Lets get someone new. Why are we talking about the same people every election cycle?
Pat
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 3:43 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):

Answer: Not America

For sure.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 3):

I don't think either will win. They both have too much baggage. I almost feel they both think they deserve it because of their last names. Lets get someone new. Why are we talking about the same people every election cycle?

That is why we are in the mess we are in., nobody is fresh and new and who is not tainted by money and corruption of the election process and the donation process.

[Edited 2015-04-27 08:51:43]
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:03 pm

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Question: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Answer: Not America

yep.

The right is going to scream about their hatred for Hillary because "we don't need a family dynasty running the country" while ignoring the whole "Bush" name.

If it comes down to Hillary vs. Bush, I think Hillary very narrowly will win. Rich white guy vs. woman and a crap ton of money will be spent.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 4):
That is why we are in the mess we are in., nobody is fresh and new and who is not tainted by money and corruption of the election process and the donation process.

In terms of fresh and new, that is probably true on the Democrat side. Barring an LBJ-like 1968 implosion, Clinton is the runaway favorite for the party nomination and she has been in national politics for approximately* 25 years.

On the Republican side, you will probably see more than a dozen faces who have never pursued the Presidency and many of whom are unknown to the majority of Americans. Many of them will be less than 50 years old. That is certainly fresh and new.

As for "tainted by money and corruption," I think that is more of a moral judgment than a fact.

* - Edit

[Edited 2015-04-27 09:14:43]
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:11 pm

I think Clinton beats Bush if the race comes down to the two of them.

I hope for some new blood, but if it is a battle between the above, then it will be a battle of political ideals , and in the end Clinton will win.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:51 pm

Pretty premature a year and a half out, don't you think?

I guess as of now I'd say Hillary, all the numbers say Hillary, but again, we're so far out
 
LittleFokker
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:05 pm

As a part of campaign reform, I would decree that campaigning (including primaries and fundraising) shouldn't begin until 3 months ahead of the election. And that would include Congressmen, so they aren't spending 3 days a week their entire term soliciting bribes, er, I mean, "fundraising."

I don't care about who these miserable asshats running for election are this far out.

[Edited 2015-04-27 11:49:52]
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 4340
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 7:28 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 9):
As a part of campaign reform, I would decree that campaigning (including primaries and fundraising) shouldn't begin until 3 months ahead of the election. And that would include Congressmen, so they aren't spending 3 days a week their entire term soliciting bribes, er, I mean, "fundraising."

Agree 100%

Signed,
Everyone in America (except politicians)
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:05 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 9):

Seriously. I'd like to see some kind of mandatory attendance as well so you can't keep cutting out to fundraise. I'll pick on Ted Cruz though I know most of them are guilty. Mr Cruz, you are a Senator, be in DC and vote and be a Senator. I don't expect you to make 100% of everything but you already are showing you're putting your presidential ambitions above your current elected job.

Is it fair that you have to be tied up in DC more than, say, Jeb Bush, who isn't a governor anymore and not in Congress? It absolutely is fair. Do your job.

Tired of seeing people run for President and go AWOL from their current job. Do your job or quit
 
L410Turbolet
Posts: 6353
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 9:12 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:22 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 9):
I would decree that campaigning (including primaries and fundraising) shouldn't begin until 3 months ahead of the election. And that would include Congressmen,

This should include a.net and its recent inflation of duplicate threads on US presidential elections... The elections are 2 years away for crying out loud!!!

[Edited 2015-04-27 14:41:40]
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 14392
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 9:29 pm

Quoting L410tURBOLET (Reply 12):
The elections are 2 years away for crying out loud!!!

18 months 1 week and 1 day.

Just saying......    
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:07 pm

As most you know,I'm moderate right.So,here goes.

I'm not dead set on Bush even being the GOP candidate but I'm not certainly not for the media candidate choice Hillary Clinton just to fill a employment quota over strength and competence.

In these times,strengthen of international and economic policies are my concerns..Obama and the democrats lost a lot of the Jewish vote IMHO,because of Israel that may turn against Hillary.But Hillary overall, scares me on international policy.Second,Obama let the deficit get over 17 trillion dollars unchecked which puts our future very cloudy not that Bush is any better to fix it.

A lot of the democrats and that of the media have dismissed the mid term electronics but I believe they got smacked with Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda in which the voters said enough especially with immigration.And this could hurt Hillary.Remember,Clinton will not have the same voting block as Obama had.People that usually don't vote at all came out for Obama.That's not going happen with Clinton. Bill Clinton record on gays could hurt Hillary,as well.

But Bush,with some reservations,gets my vote.
 
scamp
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 1:48 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 10:39 pm

Oh, gee...and then I got to the

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda

and said to myself, "Oh, gee." It's over.
 
910A
Posts: 1941
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:11 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:11 pm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Second,Obama let the deficit get over 17 trillion dollars

Really when did this happen...or did you confuse deficit and debt?
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/...-than-the-average-since-the-1980s/

and the debt under Obama isn't has bad as it seems when all the situations are factored in.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...it/p/National-Debt-Under-Obama.htm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda

Most moderates wouldn't use a statement such as this.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
dismissed the mid term

Most of the senate seats up in the last election were in Red states, so the Democrats lost all those as they were pick-up seats which were simply an adjustment into reality., but in 2016 I expect the Senate to flip back to the Democrats since the Republicans have to defend 24 seats. I can see Democrats winning in Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and possibly Arizona (McClain is not very popular at the moment) and Ohio if Portman changes his mind about running for re-election. Nevada could now be a toss-up depending who is running especially if the GOP nominates someone crazy like like they did back in 2010.
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:37 pm

Quoting 910A (Reply 16):

Really when did this happen...or did you confuse deficit and debt?

I stand corrected.The national debt.But if you look at spending to income revenue is very concerning.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

2)But a moderate can also sight a ultra right conservatives,as well.Can a moderate say that too, or no?Moderates great gift is we can look at both sides.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6374
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Mon Apr 27, 2015 11:38 pm

Personally, I hope and pray that neither Bush nor Clinton is the nominee. Since 1988 - we will have had 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush and don't need anyone from either family in the White House again for at least 50 years.

We don't need dynasties.

As far as the two - Fox News would LOVE for Hillary to win the White House. Guarantees four more years of record ratings and profits.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 12:23 am

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Second,Obama let the deficit get over 17 trillion dollars unchecked which puts our future very cloudy not that Bush is any better to fix it.

First off, national debt, not deficit.

Second, you can't plop this statement out and just leave it at that, that is dishonest. You could be the most fiscally responsible person ever but short of (some how) passing a budget that instantaneously balanced the budget (sending the economy down the tubes,) you're going to inherit the previous national debt level and deficit.

At least elaborate on what you're saying. Maybe he took too long to cut it, maybe the much reduced deficit compared to when he took office isn't good enough, but don't simply mention the national debt/deficit and leave it at that. It sounds like you're just blaming Obama for something that was largely Bush's fault.

I figure you already know all ^ but I'd be much more clear next time

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Bill Clinton record on gays could hurt Hillary,as well.

As opposed to any of the other possible GOP candidates???

I don't see how Bill Clinton's position or even Hillary's position a few years ago will hurt her on the gay front. It sounds like political flip flopping except with this issue, a HUGE chunk of the nation also "flip flopped" on this issue. I'll never know if Hillary or Obama legitimately flipped or were just playing politics... I can see it being legitimate, but again, who is going to take issue with her or Bill's stance but not take even greater issue with any other GOP candidate?

Quoting 910A (Reply 16):
Most moderates wouldn't use a statement such as this.

I was thinking the same thing but I think we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt...
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:05 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
I don't see how Bill Clinton's position or even Hillary's position a few years ago will hurt her on the gay front.

Yes,you're right.Because the media will protect Hillary.We know where the media stands.It's amazing how much time is "not" a factor and dismissed when it's the democrat issue.Flip-Flopping is ok....hmmm.But if the Clinton's were Repubs based upon Bill's "true" record on gays in favor of protecting traditional marriage the media would have burned their butts by now and sent home in disgrace.

.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
Quoting 910A (Reply 16):
Most moderates wouldn't use a statement such as this.

I was thinking the same thing but I think we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt...

Well,it's clear that I'm a no win situation.But,I did vote Obama(Mistake,Moderate left on the campaign trail to Ultra leftist extremist) over McCain in 2008. If wish to answer,did you ever vote GOP?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 19):
you can't plop this statement out and just leave it at that, that is dishonest.

It's not dishonest.It's fact.W.left the national debt at 8 trillion and got crushed by the media.It's now at 18 trillion under Obama which the media doesn't care because of social issues seem priority.

[Edited 2015-04-27 18:24:50]
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:30 am

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 20):
Because the media will protect Hillary.

The "media?" Like FOX, by far the largest cable news network in the US? Talk radio (which is IDK 95% Republican)? The internet (plenty of conservative sites.)

It's a tired meme that the "media is liberal." There are liberal leaning parts of it just like there are conservative learning parts to it. The victim card that the big bad liberal media is against us few conservatives is just delusional

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 20):
Flip-Flopping is ok

I changed my mind on gay marriage in the last few years. Am I a flip flopper?

Using VERY rough numbers, gay marriage support was about 35% in 2008, now it's about 60%. The US population being 315 millionish, that means about 78 million people "flip flopped" on gay marriage since 2008. Is it crazy to say that Obama and/or Hillary were one of the 78 million?

Do your own math, I'm sure I'm not that far off. Maybe they filled, maybe not, hard to say. I'm critical of politicians flip flopping but support for gay marriage has been a revolutionary change in the past few years. TONS of people, even politicians, have legitimately changed their minds

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 20):
But if the Clinton's were Repubs based upon Bill's "true" record on gays in favor of protecting traditional marriage the media would have burned their butts by now and sent home in disgrace.

Again, about 1/4 of the country "flipped" since 2008. Since 1996 (DOMA) ? It was like 26%!

Plus, is the media going to grill Hillary over something her husband did 19 years ago or the stuff the GOP is saying now!? I'm still failing to see how you're equating even the worst case scenarios with Clinton/Obama with what the GOP candidates are currently saying

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 20):
If wish to answer,did you ever vote GOP?

Yep. 2008, McCain and pretty much every Republican on the ballot. Was really undecided in 2012, ended up voting libertarian. Before 2008, I was too young to vote

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 20):
It's not dishonest.It's fact.W.left the national debt at 8 trillion and got crushed by the media.It's now at 18 trillion under Obama which the media doesn't care.

You realize the deficit doesn't reset to 0 when a new President takes office. Again, elaborate. You're really sounding like you don't understand that. I'm not one to jump on the Blame-the-Bush bandwagon (although there are legitimate times for that) but yeah, the deficit the day Obama took office was 100% Bush and his administration's and his Congress' fault. A year later? Mostly Bush, somewhat Obama. 2 years? 4 years? That's subjective and that's where you can argue your point out. But simply saying "well he increased the debt" is 100% true and 100% dishonest

I also don't know where you get this notion that the "media doesn't care." I hear about it all the time. Yes, even from the "liberal media"
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:51 am

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
You realize the deficit doesn't reset to 0 when a new President takes office.

Haha! You're kidding.Yes,new POTUS get a fresh start and wash everything out.(lol) Gotta go! Wednesday!
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6199
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:09 am

The only way Hilary could lose to any republican, in fact any democrat candidate, is if the republicans throw the religious right/tea party idiots out.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22287
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:20 am

The OP asks who is more LIKELY to win, not who you WANT to win.

In the past, the absolute best predictors of electoral outcomes was the electoral betting markets. Currently, 90% of betters think that Mrs. Clinton will win.

If I were a gambling man, I would put money on it...and so would 90% of people who do put money on things.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:34 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
As for "tainted by money and corruption," I think that is more of a moral judgment than a fact.

I cannot see by all that I see and read, how anyone running today, or in years past can avoid the taint of money and all that entails. Money is needed to attain power, money and power is needed to corrupt. Our system is corrupted by both. When was the last time anyone attained national office without millions in donations? That in itself is corruption. The little person is shut out of the election process, and cannot attain office. A wealthy man's game now. 1% of the population controls the other 99% because of this system,
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 24174
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:20 am

Quoting IMissPiedmont (Reply 23):
The only way Hilary could lose to any republican, in fact any democrat candidate, is if the republicans throw the religious right/tea party idiots out.

Even so, it would be a very close race.

And the correct phrase is "Democratic candidate" and not "democrat candidate." There is no democrat party. It is the Democratic party. Using the phrase "democrat party" gives MSM an undeserved sense of entitlement; that they are better than those who do not vote straight tea party ticket.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 22):
Yes,new POTUS get a fresh start and wash everything out.(lol)

Obama will be blamed for everything for decades to come. Try as they might, right wingers refuse to saddle Bush with the huge deficit, huge debt, stock market crash, housing market crash, two wars paid for by tax cuts, etc. They still blame it all on either Clinton or Obama.
 
opethfan
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:35 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 5:30 am

Quote:
Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Ross Perot.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8736
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 1:06 pm

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 9):
I would decree that campaigning (including primaries and fundraising) shouldn't begin until 3 months ahead of the election.

I would also decree that polls be suspended after primaries so as to keep politicians on their toes at all times. Maybe, just maybe, the fact that polls consistently show a candidate leading is grounds for keeping voters from the polls. If I were a Utahan Democrat, why would I bother going to vote when polls show that the Republican candidates will sweep the elections? If no polls are out, then there's still some certainty as to who may win, but no one knows the margin, which may entice me to go out and vote.

Quoting 910A (Reply 16):
Most of the senate seats up in the last election were in Red states, so the Democrats lost all those as they were pick-up seats which were simply an adjustment into reality.,

Indeed. All of the states, except CO and IA, and NC to a lesser extent, were red states. AK, AR, SD, WV, MT, and LA just finished aligning with their ideology. The question is whether after a Republican takes over, if these states would vote in a Democrat again.
 
sccutler
Posts: 5849
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 2:49 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):

Personally, I hope and pray that neither Bush nor Clinton is the nominee. Since 1988 - we will have had 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush and don't need anyone from either family in the White House again for at least 50 years.

We don't need dynasties.

Yep. Fresh blood needed.
 
sierrakilo44
Posts: 680
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 1:38 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 3:40 pm

Who will win?
If we're going by the association of the family name only:
Clinton is associated with the 90's, an era of relative economic prosperity and peace for America
Bush is associated with the 2000's, an era of wars and economic trouble.
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 4:02 pm

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 3):
I don't think either will win.

That is not beyond possibility since we are still over 18 months away from the general election.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 3):
They both have too much baggage.

Of the two, I'd say Hillary has far-and-away more baggage. Bush's primary albatross is his family name (a lot of people still turn green when they hear the name "Bush"). Hillary, on the other hand, has name baggage as well as serious political baggage which, if she were a Republican, would have sunk her candidacy by now given the media's tendency to give her and Dems in general a pass.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
On the Republican side, you will probably see more than a dozen faces who have never pursued the Presidency and many of whom are unknown to the majority of Americans. Many of them will be less than 50 years old. That is certainly fresh and new.

Sounds like Obama when he first entered the Presidential race in 2007.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 11):
Mr Cruz, you are a Senator, be in DC and vote and be a Senator. I don't expect you to make 100% of everything but you already are showing you're putting your presidential ambitions above your current elected job.

And that could also have easily applied to Obama as well when he was a newby Senator who threw his hat in the Presidential ring.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Tue Apr 28, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 22):
Haha! You're kidding.Yes,new POTUS get a fresh start and wash everything out.(lol) Gotta go! Wednesday!

  Are you sarcastically implying that I said the new POTUS does not get a fresh start (deficit reset to 0) when he takes office when I pretty blatantly said the opposite?

I would go back and reread what I just said or clarify the point you're trying to make. Actually that's a common theme, clarify all your points a lot better. I highly doubt you are meaning some of the things you seem to be implying because they fly in the face of all logic (and I think/would hope you're just wording things poorly vs actually believing them.)

I'd start with explaining how much of the deficit and national debt (again, there is a difference, just making sure you know) is Obama's fault since as we both have said, Obama inherited a big debt and terrible economy and while we can't keep blaming Bush for everything, yes, we can absolutely blame him on day 1 and sometime beyond

Secondly, I'm still wondering why anyone concerned with gay rights will support _______ (fill in ANY GOP candidate here) over Hillary despite her being against it years ago (along with ~75million other Americans that have since changed their minds) and despite her husband signing DOMA almost 20 years ago.

Quoting redflyer (Reply 31):
And that could also have easily applied to Obama as well when he was a newby Senator who threw his hat in the Presidential ring.

I was younger and not as politically active, so for argument sake, I will assume you are right since I wasn't paying attention back then. Yeah, so? I'm not suggesting something that would only be enforced against the GOP. Wrong is wrong no matter what letter is beside your name
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:02 am

Quoting sierrakilo44 (Reply 30):
Clinton is associated with the 90's, an era of relative economic prosperity and peace for America
Bush is associated with the 2000's, an era of wars and economic trouble.

Absolutely, and it has been all down hill since the Clinton years. I and everyone I know remember the Clinton years with appreciation of the money we all made. A different age, a different time. I know who I am voting for. The Clinton years allowed myself and my wife to retire early and survive the Bush years and hang on during the Obama era.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:09 am

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
When was the last time anyone attained national office without millions in donations? That in itself is corruption.

The average winning U.S. House campaign spent about $1.6 million in 2012, so it stands to reason that there are many sitting Congressmen and women who attained their office without (plural) millions in donations.

It is not corruption that campaigns cost money. It is not corruption that candidates receive that money from people who want to see them elected. Corruption requires a quid pro quo or intent to bribe rather than just an intent to support. The reality is that the vast majority of people contribute to the campaigns of people with whom they already agree.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
The little person is shut out of the election process, and cannot attain office. A wealthy man's game now.

National offices aren't a place for little people. They are for great people who are among the best leaders that we have in our society. Plenty of them come from humble means. Take our sitting President and House Speaker, for example.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
1% of the population controls the other 99% because of this system,

It sure sounds like you would rather have a limited government.   
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 14195
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:36 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
The average winning U.S. House campaign spent about $1.6 million in 2012, so it stands to reason that there are many sitting Congressmen and women who attained their office without (plural) millions in donations.

Let me know how many people you know that can raise that kind of money without kissing asses. Corruption, influence peddling, all an intregal part of the system.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
National offices aren't a place for little people. They are for great people who are among the best leaders that we have in our society. Plenty of them come from humble means. Take our sitting President and House Speaker, for example.

Of course they are not, that is why money clogs the system, billions are spent to get elected. Most certainly not for the little people anymore. My point exactly.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
It sure sounds like you would rather have a limited government.   

I and millions more would rather we had an ethical, honest representative government. Not a government controlled by money and special interests. Take a look at the respect that congress commands these days. Even the US SC is losing respect these days. The US Government is even losing the trust of the people. A sad situation, not getting better. What is the word that comes to mind. Oligarchy?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22287
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 18):

Personally, I hope and pray that neither Bush nor Clinton is the nominee. Since 1988 - we will have had 20 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush and don't need anyone from either family in the White House again for at least 50 years.

We don't need dynastie

I get tired of this argument.

If a Bush or a Clinton or a Kennedy or an Obama can do a good job, then rejecting them on their face for their last name is as senseless as rejecting them for their race or some other immutable characteristic.

Jeb Bush didn't pick his family or his last name. Hillary did, but at that time she was marrying some young dude named Bill Clinton. She never married President Clinton.

Fact is that I think that Hillary Clinton is the best qualified person for the job (at least as far as people who want the job are concerned) and IDGAF what her last name is. Similarly, I don't think Jeb Bush is the best person for the job and again, it has nothing to do with his last name.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8435
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:32 am

Do you want Syphilus (Bush) or Chlamydia (Clinton)?

Syphilus is definitely the republican STD.

- highly contageous
- The infected person is often unaware of the disease and unknowingly passes it on
- can cause dimentia
- if treated too late, there may be permanent damage to the heart and brain

Chlamydia the Democrat STD
- very common infectious disease (Common in all demographics)
- It may become dormant (inactive) and remain there indefinitely.
 
na
Posts: 9891
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:29 am

I hope that with Bush No.3 this war-happy dynasty will vanish from the political stage. I can´t stand them. The last Bush was probably the worst president the US ever had, a gun- and big business guy leading the most unnecessary wars with horrible long-term consequences for the whole world, destroying his country´s image even among its friends and creating unprecedented debts. Never ever in its history the US went down in such a short period. GWB´s policy is very much responsible for the negative things happening during Obamas two terms who had to spend much effort to repair what the Texas Cowboy and his criminal-like friends Rumsfeld and Cheney had destroyed. That GWB´s brother Jeb (apparently named after a slave society defending general of the civil war) is even considered to become the next president is a worrying sign.

Quoting sierrakilo44 (Reply 30):
Clinton is associated with the 90's, an era of relative economic prosperity and peace for America
Bush is associated with the 2000's, an era of wars and economic trouble.

That is absolutely right.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 8736
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:59 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 34):
Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 25):
The little person is shut out of the election process, and cannot attain office. A wealthy man's game now.

National offices aren't a place for little people. They are for great people who are among the best leaders that we have in our society. Plenty of them come from humble means. Take our sitting President and House Speaker, for example.

Well they should be. The problem is that money buys elections. It takes money to run a campaign, to run ads during prime time, and the fact that the ground is not leveled (as in, limiting funding to a certain cap for each campaign) means that whoever has a millionaire sponsor has a better shot at winning. Joe Average cannot even hope to be well known if John Doe is sponsored by Mr. Monopoly.
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2990
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:10 pm

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):

I would say Jeb Bush. You?

Jeb Bush has a big hill to climb and that's just for the GOP nomination.

-He's been out of office for more than 8 years....
-He's the brother of one of the worst presidents in history -- George W Bush.
-He made some bad decisions as governor, especially intervening in Terry Shiavo case...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case

Scott Walker and Marco Rubio seem to be the favorites to beat for GOP nomination. Can Jeb Bush defeat both?

[Edited 2015-04-29 06:12:13]
 
na
Posts: 9891
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:48 pm

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 39):
Well they should be. The problem is that money buys elections. It takes money to run a campaign, to run ads during prime time, and the fact that the ground is not leveled (as in, limiting funding to a certain cap for each campaign) means that whoever has a millionaire sponsor has a better shot at winning. Joe Average cannot even hope to be well known if John Doe is sponsored by Mr. Monopoly.

The campaigning process in the US is a shame for a country which sees itself as the center of democracy. A country as rich as the US should be able to provide a certain amount of tax money for a candidate´s campaign. Taking even a single dollar from influential business circles should be declared illegal as its nothing than corruption in its effect.
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 20321
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 1:58 pm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda

  

Seriously, there are no left-wing politics in America - you have right-wing and somewhat-less-right-wing. The Democrats would be classified as a central party at worst in just about any other democratic country.
 
na
Posts: 9891
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 2:19 pm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda

Thats a joke, right? A bad one. If Obama is an ultra leftist, then 90% of the Americans must be ultra rightists in reality. Left or right, political extremes are never good. If someone seriously thinks Obama is a leftist then he/she must be a radical conservative in a negative sense and with no knowlege of what right or left really is in politics. If something is out of balance in the US, off the political middle track, then its a good part of the Republicans.
Anyway ist strange that there are only two parties in Washington.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
Seriously, there are no left-wing politics in America - you have right-wing and somewhat-less-right-wing. The Democrats would be classified as a central party at worst in just about any other democratic country.

Correct.

[Edited 2015-04-29 07:20:50]
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:47 pm

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 35):
Let me know how many people you know that can raise that kind of money without kissing asses. Corruption, influence peddling, all an intregal part of the system.

Raising $1.6 million requires about 600 donations at the annual contribution limit of $2,600. That's hardly impossible. Again, look at how many people from ordinary means have attained office in the United States.

It sounds like your position is that someone should be able to mount a credible campaign for a political office with no prior successes in life, no personal resources, no network of connections, and no like-minded constituents. Is that correct?

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 35):
Of course they are not, that is why money clogs the system, billions are spent to get elected. Most certainly not for the little people anymore. My point exactly.

So what exactly is your definition of a "little person?" Given that you said "anymore," who was the last person fitting your description who was elected to office?

My position is that wealth has no bearing on whether someone is "little" or not. There are plenty of people from poor or modest beginnings who have attained elected office. By definition, someone who reaches such a high office is no "little" person.
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
Quoting PSA53 (Reply 14):
Obama's ultra leftist liberal agenda

  

Seriously, there are no left-wing politics in America - you have right-wing and somewhat-less-right-wing. The Democrats would be classified as a central party at worst in just about any other democratic country.

Ah,such a hoot.   
Serious,though.My statement is dead on with no regrets.It's only unfortunate that many feel Obama and his democrats are qualified for sainthood.UGH!!
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 6:15 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
changed my mind on gay marriage in the last few years. Am I a flip flopper?

How many issues has Obama flip-flopped from campaign promises starting with Patriot Act? Hmm...Must be a new allowable trend.




Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
It's a tired meme that the "media is liberal."

Let's see here....

FOX against

Jon Stewart and Comedy Central
Bill Maher and HBO
NBC
MSNBC
CNN
ABC
CBS
Washington Post
Salon
Google
Yahoo
Local stations
PBS
Huffington

Seems fair reporting(lol).
I could go on but the point is taken of term "liberal mainstream media" is very justified with some very close to being even called political parties.

Only the true in partial networks are the C-SPAN channels.

[Edited 2015-04-29 11:19:53]

[Edited 2015-04-29 11:41:22]
 
Ken777
Posts: 10203
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:38 pm

I believe it is a flip of the coin right now. Both should be OK in office as long as they don't get the yo-yos around them that did so much to screw up W's years.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 2):
Answer: Not America

America doesn't loose if either Bush or Clinton get elected. America lost when the Tea Party came to power. The damage they have done while wrapping themselves i the Flag is enough to make me gag.

What to look for this election will be the individuals selected to serve with the new President. Again, we saw the disaster of W's selections and this disaster rather than who is President, will be critical.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 6):
Many of them will be less than 50 years old. That is certainly fresh and new.

New & Different is an appropriate tag.

We have the Canadian who, at the last minute, thought "Oooooops! I'd better dump that Canadian citizenship.

And we have the High School Grad who might be trying to figure out how to get that university degree before the election. Or at least a JC diploma.

And the GOP might put up a woman. Great resume until she got fired from her CEO positional HP because of incompetence.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
Seriously, there are no left-wing politics in America - you have right-wing and somewhat-less-right-wing.

Well, Bernie Sanders looks like he is running. The guy is a bit left of center by today's standards, but would have been a lot closer to the middle by the standards of the 50's and 60's.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 7:55 pm

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 46):
How many issues has Obama flip-flopped from campaign promises starting with Patriot Act? Hmm...Must be a new allowable trend.

Quite a few issues. Does that mean he's incapable of ever changing his mind? I never even said that he absolutely did change his mind legitimately, I'm just saying you can't necessary say that he did. I think we are capable of looking at different scenarios and not just blanket make up our minds on everything. That's intellectual laziness

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 46):
FOX against

Do you realize how big FOX News is? They are either close to on par or larger than the other cable news channels combined. Look it up. That's like saying "the United States is so weak against Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Cuba, etc." FOX is massive.

And why did you leave out the other right wing media sources while you included every other liberal media source out there? You are very dishonest. Compare FOX (a cable news channel) vs the other cable channels, or, compare FOX plus the massive right wing radio force and the sizable right wing presence on the internet vs your liberal list.

Should I just complain how small the liberal media is by comparing liberal talk radio against right wing radio and FOX and whine about how small the liberal media is? Don't you see how flawed that logic is?

The constant whiny victimhood of how conservatives in the media are so underrepresented is really old and wildly inaccurate. You'll find liberal pockets here, conservative pockets there, there may be fewer sources in some form of media that are huge in size, you may have dozens of small ones over there, etc. It won't be 50-50% either. But the bottom line is, right wing media is huge. Their message gets out, they have plenty of ways. FOX, the largest cable news station by far, talk radio (completely dominated by the right,) and multiple websites. Quit playing the victim card and selectively picking and choosing things to make one side look so minuscule
 
PSA53
Posts: 2939
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Bush VS Clinton: Who Is More Likely To Win?

Wed Apr 29, 2015 8:25 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
And why did you leave out the other right wing media sources

Like who? What national media has a true conservative CC Daily Show format.for example?A:FOX? (lol) Anyway,give other TV conservative formats that made a name for themselves.I can think of two others.Blaze and Newsmax.And most people have no idea who they are.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 48):
" FOX is massive.

Haha.Yes,they are such as monster!(lol) Somewhat of over statement as oppose to NBC/MSNBC ,ABC and CBS and their owners and off-shoot media outlets.

Anyway,this is getting way off subject. I'll end it here.Give a counter reply or create another thread if you wish.

Later!

[Edited 2015-04-29 13:52:25]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: af773atmsp, Google Adsense [Bot], Newark727, NIKV69 and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos