Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CavLancer, Jun 12, 2014.
Well, sometimes even Buddha had to kick some ass.
I must have missed the part of the lore where Buddha killed civilians in drone strokes
As a basic rule of thumb, move away from an unpopular incumbent. Therefore, I would expect the winner to be right of President Obama. Whatever option that is.
There isn't anyone to the right of Obama in the Democratic party. But the Republicans are really behind the 8 ball in terms of having a viable candidate. The Republican primaries increasingly lean towards candidates that the general voter won't touch with a 10 foot pole.
Why not a move to the left, given Obama's conservatism?
Well I guess I'll have to reluctantly side with the left then.
He is noticably left of center. More importantly he is perceived to be a leftist.
The ACA was passed over the near unanimous objections of the right. There is no plausible way to paint him as conservative.
He is extremely right of center.
Who determines "center"?
I hope the president is one party and the rest is the other party. Total gridlock means no waste of money. Clinton did very well because he could do nothing. Imo anyway...
Both parties are hard up.
Hillary is Ronald Reagan old, looks much worse and cannot tell or take a joke. An anti-hillary candidate will emerge. History is very consistent on that point. Democrats eat their mid term front runner. In this case that assumes a 68 year old woman even wants to run. Behind is a real mess. I would lean to Warren or Warner.
The Republicans may try to go back to the Bush. Jeb is widely considered the smarter of Bush 41's two sons. GW Bush is being rehabilitated by the current mess in Iraq. He had it set up for 4 permanent bases, which would be very useful now. It is also much to early to count out Christie, but I think a field candidate is more likely.
This election could be a "Who's she?" for both parties.
GW Bush lost the Iraq war in the first place. How is he rehabilitated by it?
If you think he lost the war, you deserve that icon.
If you insist that the war was lost, it was in 2010 and 2011 with the pullout. As I said above, we were set for four permanent bases, which this administration abandoned.
The war was lost years before Obama was elected. There was no outcome for the US which was not a loss. There was no endgame where the US did not lose. It was only a question of when.
I'd call downtown a leftist.
Won or lost GWB took out Iran's #1 enemy on its borders. At that point in history in the US Bush had to lead the country in a war against somebody, why not Iran itself? Definitely terrorist supporters, going after nukes and the single worst enemy of our one strong ally in the region. Instead Iran might just end up with Iraq and be stronger by far.
Its a no brainer, Iran. Bush has no brain, so he attacked Iraq. I think Gore is an absolute waste of space but anybody would have been better than Bush.
Agree, anyone but Hillary.
Find the midway point between the last two Presidents. Both are reputed to be centrist.
Seriously, somewhere between MSNBC and Fox.
Who in their right mind would classify Junior as even close center? He's extremely hard-right. The real center is close to Bill Clinton in the US.
By your definition the hard right is not in right mind. Since that is a group that comprises about 30% of the voting population, perhaps the definition is a bit harsh.
There are large sectors that considered Bush too concilliatory. For example the prescrition drug program was considered a major breach of faith. Immigration was another area. He received good marks for handling the military, but the Sean Hannity crowd--and it is a fairly large crowd--thought him much to liberal.
Clinton was pragmaitic. He coopted a lot of Republican issues. Given a friendly congress, he was much more liberal than he is remembered. Definitions of center matter, but if you mean 1/2 of the voters, halfway between Bush and Clinto is pretty close.
At the time, Iran was in the middle of a secular cycle that favored the west. People thought President Bush was overboard when he included them in the "Axis of Evil".
Only a pure partisan can say the war was not won. When one side surrendered, the other side won. Much as he was abused in the press, "Mission Accomplished" was accurate. Militarily speaking, it could not have gone better. State Department, not so much.
I suppose you could divide the Iraq War into two wars. The first one, against Saddam Hussein and his regime, was a decisive and rapid American victory. The second one, against various insurgent groups, was inconclusive at best. The US military is great against conventional state actors, but guerrilla warfare is an entirely different story.
Separate names with a comma.