The Repub Debate

[HuskerNation1]

So then let's forget about Katrina and simply compare consulate deaths under Bush to consulate deaths under Obama.

 

Then let's just forget the whole thing, because really bad sh#t happens under everyone's watch.

 

Here's one nobody likes to talk about: Obama has been an absolute beast in the War on Terror, taking out far more high-profile terrorists than the Bush administration ever did.

 

But that requires conservatives to accept that Obama has been both aggressive and successful in persecuting our Islamic enemies.

 

And it requires liberals to accept that Obama has been pursuing ongoing, unchecked drone warfare that kills far more innocents than high-profile terrorists, a strategy that would have drawn outrage under Bush.

 

Discuss.

 

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death.

 

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden

 

Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

[zoogs]

breitbart

redstate

realclearpolitics

townhall

freebeacon

...It completely makes sense, how you're arriving at your positions.

 

For me, taking out bin Laden was the least meaningful of Obama's most trumpeted 'accomplishments'. America gained much less than Obama's prestige did from bin Laden's death. Vengeance means nothing to me. So we now live in a world where terrorists have different names, mostly. Yay? ...

 

We'd put America First ™ infinitely more by investing in ourselves here than by killing anybody. And I do agree; the U.S. had pursued him for so long, it was bound to happen. That should have logically been neither an opportunity for Democrats to tout their guy, nor for Republicans to tout torture. But what do you expect in politics, I guess.

 

One of the strongest criticisms of Obama from the left is that there was this opportunity to really roll back the security state path America had reflexively set upon post-9/11, but instead his administration has doubled down. The dollars and lives expended, both American and foreign, in the past decade-going-on-what-is-clearly-going-to-be-forever, could have been put to much better use.

[teachercd]

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes it amazes me what people think. Who agrees with that?

[HuskerShark]

Sometimes, not always, but sometimes it amazes me what people think. Who agrees with that?

Lol yep

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

So then let's forget about Katrina and simply compare consulate deaths under Bush to consulate deaths under Obama.

 

Then let's just forget the whole thing, because really bad sh#t happens under everyone's watch.

 

Here's one nobody likes to talk about: Obama has been an absolute beast in the War on Terror, taking out far more high-profile terrorists than the Bush administration ever did.

 

But that requires conservatives to accept that Obama has been both aggressive and successful in persecuting our Islamic enemies.

 

And it requires liberals to accept that Obama has been pursuing ongoing, unchecked drone warfare that kills far more innocents than high-profile terrorists, a strategy that would have drawn outrage under Bush.

 

Discuss.

 

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death.

 

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden

 

Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

 

 

Dude, if you are that intent to connect the dots to a Democrat, there's nothing more I can say.

 

I was making an honest attempt to show how American foreign policy tends to operate regardless of the administration in power, and how that muddies our rooting interests.

 

Then again, I said "nobody likes to talk about this" so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

But yes, it amazes me what people think.

[BigRedBuster]

 

So then let's forget about Katrina and simply compare consulate deaths under Bush to consulate deaths under Obama.

 

Then let's just forget the whole thing, because really bad sh#t happens under everyone's watch.

 

Here's one nobody likes to talk about: Obama has been an absolute beast in the War on Terror, taking out far more high-profile terrorists than the Bush administration ever did.

 

But that requires conservatives to accept that Obama has been both aggressive and successful in persecuting our Islamic enemies.

 

And it requires liberals to accept that Obama has been pursuing ongoing, unchecked drone warfare that kills far more innocents than high-profile terrorists, a strategy that would have drawn outrage under Bush.

 

Discuss.

 

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death.

 

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden

 

Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

 

What world events or Middle East events happened that allowed a group like ISIS to take hold and grow?

[HuskerShark]

 

 

So then let's forget about Katrina and simply compare consulate deaths under Bush to consulate deaths under Obama.

 

Then let's just forget the whole thing, because really bad sh#t happens under everyone's watch.

 

Here's one nobody likes to talk about: Obama has been an absolute beast in the War on Terror, taking out far more high-profile terrorists than the Bush administration ever did.

 

But that requires conservatives to accept that Obama has been both aggressive and successful in persecuting our Islamic enemies.

 

And it requires liberals to accept that Obama has been pursuing ongoing, unchecked drone warfare that kills far more innocents than high-profile terrorists, a strategy that would have drawn outrage under Bush.

 

Discuss.

 

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death.

 

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden

 

Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

Dude, if you are that intent to connect the dots to a Democrat, there's nothing more I can say.

 

I was making an honest attempt to show how American foreign policy tends to operate regardless of the administration in power, and how that muddies our rooting interests.

 

Then again, I said "nobody likes to talk about this" so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

But yes, it amazes me what people think.

Agree 100%

 

It's one of the most major problems of the two party system. Instead of working together for the good of the country and its people, we have two groups who each try to vilify the other by pointing fingers. This is called politics. Hence, everything that is wrong with the country on the federal government level is the fault of politicians. that has been one of the main bases of my support for Trump, right or wrong.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

So then let's forget about Katrina and simply compare consulate deaths under Bush to consulate deaths under Obama.

 

Then let's just forget the whole thing, because really bad sh#t happens under everyone's watch.

 

Here's one nobody likes to talk about: Obama has been an absolute beast in the War on Terror, taking out far more high-profile terrorists than the Bush administration ever did.

 

But that requires conservatives to accept that Obama has been both aggressive and successful in persecuting our Islamic enemies.

 

And it requires liberals to accept that Obama has been pursuing ongoing, unchecked drone warfare that kills far more innocents than high-profile terrorists, a strategy that would have drawn outrage under Bush.

 

Discuss.

Wow, you are really on a roll with these laughable statements. First off, I will give Obama credit for taking out Bin Laden and other key targets, as any time this is accomplished its putting America First. With that said, Obama would never have caught Osama without the intelligence and interrogation policies put in place by Bush that he and the left strongly opposed. There were countless stories written about this at the time of Bin Laden's death.

 

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/09/05/no-president-obama-didnt-find-osama-bin-laden/

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/05/05/bush_led_bin_laden_dead_--_wheres_the_credit_109757.html

 

http://townhall.com/columnists/guybenson/2011/05/05/vindication_three_controversial_bush_policies_help_take_down_bin_laden

 

Second, just as Al Quada began to thrive during the Clinton years, ISIS has began to thrive under the Obama years, GROWING BY 4400%, and this according to Obama's own CIA director.

 

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cia-director-isis-has-grown-4400-percent-under-obama/

Dude, if you are that intent to connect the dots to a Democrat, there's nothing more I can say.

 

I was making an honest attempt to show how American foreign policy tends to operate regardless of the administration in power, and how that muddies our rooting interests.

 

Then again, I said "nobody likes to talk about this" so I shouldn't be surprised.

 

But yes, it amazes me what people think.

Agree 100%

 

It's one of the most major problems of the two party system. Instead of working together for the good of the country and its people, we have two groups who each try to vilify the other by pointing fingers. This is called politics. Hence, everything that is wrong with the country on the federal government level is the fault of politicians. that has been one of the main bases of my support for Trump, right or wrong.

 

 

Hence?

 

You sure corporate business interests can't take a little responsibility for the economic collapses, and the wars waged only in countries that affect their business interests?

 

And even a bit of the racial and immigration politics, as they relate directly to the labor force?

 

Blaming politicians for everything is just too easy.

[zoogs]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinion/campaign-stops/the-indelible-stain-of-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Guest op-ed in the NYT by Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of three U.S. presidents --Reagan, HW, and W. A well-written perspective from a conservative extremely skeptical of the GOP's decision to work with Trump.

[HuskerShark]

Zoogs, they don't have a choice at this point. If they overthrow him at the convention, not only would there be mass uproar by voters based on a rigged political system, Trump very well might flip the GOP the bird and run 3rd party. It's a no win situation for the establishment and i couldn't be more happy. Now the Democratic party needs the same thing to happen in 8 years

[NM11046]

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/opinion/campaign-stops/the-indelible-stain-of-donald-trump.html?_r=0

Guest op-ed in the NYT by Peter Wehner, who served in the administrations of three U.S. presidents --Reagan, HW, and W. A well-written perspective from a conservative extremely skeptical of the GOP's decision to work with Trump.

 

EXCELLENT Zoogs. Thank you for sharing this.

[zoogs]

Zoogs, they don't have a choice at this point. If they overthrow him at the convention, not only would there be mass uproar by voters based on a rigged political system, Trump very well might flip the GOP the bird and run 3rd party. It's a no win situation for the establishment and i couldn't be more happy. Now the Democratic party needs the same thing to happen in 8 years

The author is very sympathetic to this; he refers to McConnell and Ryan as great men, and characterizes Ryan as pinning his hope on influencing Trump. So, the article is all about acknowledging the political realities facing these top GOP players -- the opinion builds on that.

 

Although, I would argue that they *always* have a choice.

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's not like businessmen and Washington outsiders have never been elected.

 

Once they learn how the sausage is made, they pretty much become sausage makers.

 

I kinda love the idea of disrupting the establishment myself, but as John Lennon said, if you say you want a revolution, you better have plan.

 

I don't see any evidence that Donald Trump has a better way to run America.

 

Actually, he's pretty awful. Honestly.

[HuskerShark]

Hold on a sec... Our taxes are going toward a sausage factory?

 

But in all seriousness, i get what you're saying and I'm very interested to see how this thing all plays out

[cm husker]

I know it seems simplistic.

 

I know it's a liberal canard.

 

But the biggest reason Americans think America has gone off the tracks under Obama is because Fox News keeps telling them so.

 

As Knapp points out, facts are available if you really want them.

 

A lot of people don't.

 

While I don't ascribe to the belief republicans are financially responsible, a POTUS has limited control of debt and often things are on a lag. For example, poor economic practices during the 90s caused the collapse in the 00s. And a tech boom in the 90s probably disguised underlying economic weaknesses that led to a fall in productivity and debt in the 2000s.