Bush/Cheney vs Trump/Pence

[JA]

I'd rather have an incompetent, scandal ridden fool as President who can't get any legislation passed and has shown no substantive interest in starting any mass casualty wars, than a functioning administration run by a buffoon and one of Lucifer's minions with a penchant for lying to start wars with over a million innocent deaths. So, I vote Trump/Pence.

[Goldwater]

Bush/Cheney, easily.

[JA]

Bush/Cheney by far. (I actually voted for them last November). I'd love W. back as President.

Bush/Cheney, easily.

Why?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Bush/Cheney by far. (I actually voted for them last November). I'd love W. back as President.

Bush/Cheney, easily.

Why?

Cause Establishment Republicans are way closer to our policy beliefs than Trump style Republicans.

[fhtagn]

Bush/Cheney, easily.

[Lechasseur]

Bush/Cheney, easily.

[Santander]

Trump/Pence (R, sane, patriot)

[SNJ1985]

Trump/Pence, easily (paleoconservative)

[SATW]

Bush-Cheney would get my vote over most Republicans of today.

[JA]

Looks like the image of the Administration that lied us into a trillion dollar war, killed over a million people, and helped crash the world economy has been exceptionally rehabilitated. I'd still take Trump any day.

[SATW]

Looks like the image of the Administration that lied us into a trillion dollar war, killed over a million people, and helped crash the world economy has been exceptionally rehabilitated. I'd still take Trump any day.

Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. And that someone can't seem to fathom that people may disagree with him.

[Kingpoleon]

... No I/O?

[Blair]

It's a basic question of who would you rather was in the situation room after 9/11- Bush or Trump.

[Beet]

TD, my problem is not with the notion that American ideals should be defended but the idea of starting a war to spread them. That's the same as the crusader mentality, and the impact is to corrode those ideals. I think we've seen that, ironically, the world's Freedom House scores peaked in 2005, just two years after the war, and have been falling since. Everywhere, autocracy is on the march.

It's hard to imagine this occurred in my lifetime:



Ignore the awkward '80s aesthetics and look at the faces of the young people at the bottom of the picture... literally gathered around a statue modeled after the Statue of Liberty. That was when American ideals had cachet all over the world. Such a thing could not even be imagined now. In the late '80s democratic revolutions were spreading all over the world... not just the former Communist bloc, but in Latin America, southern Europe, Southeast Asia, and Africa. At that time, the most recent American intervention (Vietnam) was a disaster and we had spent 20 years pulling back. Meanwhile, our own society changed to be more equitable and just, and the impact of rising wealth inequality wasn't quite felt. During that golden median, America became a beacon for the world. Today people look at this country see... a president who hates half his own people more than a Russian dictator.

[JA]

TD,

Thank you for your post. Like I was trying to tell that poster in the other thread, I wasn't looking to start a debate over the issue, since I already know your opinions aren't formed from ignorance. Whatever argument I may posit against the Iraq War and the Bush Administration you've already encountered. Nevertheless, I enjoyed reading your perspective in the above post because, despite our obvious disagreements, I can respect a person whose views are based on reason and principle.

One thing with which I particularly disagree with you is on spreading democracy. While I certainly agree that more countries should adopt democratic methods and provide greater civil and personal freedoms to their populace, along with tackling corruption and ensuring opportunity, I highly doubt the ability to achieve that through military interventions. Take Iraq for example. It may not be nice to say, but that society simply isn't ready for democracy. There are still too many internal divisions with long historical underlying causes, traceable back to its colonial times. There are numerous problems that arise simply from its current borders; not to mention the heightened tensions in recent years between the different communities within them. I certainly believe a more hands off approach, while empowering them to resolve their internal problems through their own communities and institutions, would be the best. Work with them, but don't impose. And definitely don't exploit them or manipulate their internal politics for gain.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

As for the reasons I wrote him in, I was specifically backing him as a rebuke to the nativist Trumpian GOP that wanted to go isolationist / non-interventionist, roll back his free trade ideals within the Republican Party, and to shut off his efforts to appeal to minorities in favor of a white nationalist appeal. I thought for all his mistakes, 43 was a reasonable model on which to build a successful Republican Party and conservative model for the nation.

You know what else would have been a rebuke to Trump's non-interventionism, economic nationalism and immigration restrictionism? Voting for Hillary Clinton.

You remember? The candidate who believed in free trade, an interventionist foreign policy, and a general amnesty with border security?

[All Along The Watchtower]

burned alive or having a piece of rope forcibly shoved down your throat

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

As for the reasons I wrote him in, I was specifically backing him as a rebuke to the nativist Trumpian GOP that wanted to go isolationist / non-interventionist, roll back his free trade ideals within the Republican Party, and to shut off his efforts to appeal to minorities in favor of a white nationalist appeal. I thought for all his mistakes, 43 was a reasonable model on which to build a successful Republican Party and conservative model for the nation.

You know what else would have been a rebuke to Trump's non-interventionism, economic nationalism and immigration restrictionism? Voting for Hillary Clinton.

You remember? The candidate who believed in free trade, an interventionist foreign policy, and a general amnesty with border security?

Oh, we're playing this game, I see.

Hillary Clinton failed the bolded part. She was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and we disagreed on a number of things. So I didn't vote for her. Also, she's ethically scandal tarred.

You know who also supported these things you say Hillary Clinton did? Ronald Reagan. You know which party supported these things from 1981 to 2016 and has a large segment of the party still supporting these things you think is so bad? That's right, the Republican Party.

Your boy is not a Reagan conservative, as much as a nationalist for economic and nativist populations. (How he's governing, thanks to the fact he's incompetent and incapable of staffing appropriately or even accomplishing an agenda is a different matter).

I'll respond to everyone else llater.

In one breath, you excuse your spoiled ballot on the grounds that Hillary wasn't solid on abortion and gun rights. In the next, you reference Reagan - infamous supporter of "therapeutic abortion" and a ban on assault weapons - as the touchstone of conservatism.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Looks like the image of the Administration that lied us into a trillion dollar war, killed over a million people, and helped crash the world economy has been exceptionally rehabilitated. I'd still take Trump any day.

Looks like someone doesn't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. And that someone can't seem to fathom that people may disagree with him.

Agreed. Anyone who says that the George W. Bush administration's economic policies didn't directly contribute a great deal to crashing the world economy in 2008 or that they didn't deliberately manipulate Americans' post-9/11 traumas, fear, and anger so that they would support the administration's trillion dollar war of choice that directly caused over a million deaths and directly led to the rise of the Islamic State clearly doesn't know the difference between subjective opinion and objective fact.

[The_Doctor]

As for the reasons I wrote him in, I was specifically backing him as a rebuke to the nativist Trumpian GOP that wanted to go isolationist / non-interventionist, roll back his free trade ideals within the Republican Party, and to shut off his efforts to appeal to minorities in favor of a white nationalist appeal. I thought for all his mistakes, 43 was a reasonable model on which to build a successful Republican Party and conservative model for the nation.

You know what else would have been a rebuke to Trump's non-interventionism, economic nationalism and immigration restrictionism? Voting for Hillary Clinton.

You remember? The candidate who believed in free trade, an interventionist foreign policy, and a general amnesty with border security?

Oh, we're playing this game, I see.

Hillary Clinton failed the bolded part. She was pro-choice, pro-gun control, and we disagreed on a number of things. So I didn't vote for her. Also, she's ethically scandal tarred.

You know who also supported these things you say Hillary Clinton did? Ronald Reagan. You know which party supported these things from 1981 to 2016 and has a large segment of the party still supporting these things you think is so bad? That's right, the Republican Party.

Your boy is not a Reagan conservative, as much as a nationalist for economic and nativist populations. (How he's governing, thanks to the fact he's incompetent and incapable of staffing appropriately or even accomplishing an agenda is a different matter).

I'll respond to everyone else llater.

In one breath, you excuse your spoiled ballot on the grounds that Hillary wasn't solid on abortion and gun rights. In the next, you reference Reagan - infamous supporter of "therapeutic abortion" and a ban on assault weapons - as the touchstone of conservatism.

Wow, you're notoriously bad at arguing or even making a point.

So, you mean the same man who renounced that portion of his California governorship, advocated a Human Life Amendment in 1980, appointed Antonin Scalia to the Court, and elevated William Rehnquist to the Chief Justiceship and led the most conservative revolution in the United States since the 1920s? You mean the man who wrote the 1984 Mexico City policy that banned overseas funding for abortions by NGO's?

Yeah, I'd say he's the touchstone of modern American conservatism.

(Also, by that standard, Donald Trump, noted abortion rights supporter and single payer, should be disqualified from consideration as a conservative, no? I remember his 2000 book calling single payer a fundamental right).

(Do I really need to spell out where else I disagreed on Hillary Clinton? I listed a few things I disagreed with her but it's patently obvious we have different worldviews that were incompatible enough for me to vote for her and Trump wasn't President).

EDIT: Oh yes, Reagan was fairly pro-guns. The assault weapons thing you speak of is directly related to his near assassination and the death of James Brady and was announced in 1991.

[dw93]

Depends on a variety of factors.

[Greedo punched first]

Bush/Cheney. Trump/Pence is the worst.

[Senator Spark]

Trump/Pence whom I voted for.

[DavidB.]

Trump.

[mvd10]

Bush/Cheney. They f**ked up Iraq but I still trust them more with the nuclear codes than Trump.