"He kept us safe."

[Jim V.]

Yeah....Dubya kept us safe all right. Except for that one day. Can't quite remember which. 

[Douchepool]

Bush 2.0 deserves his fair share of the blame, as do Reagan, Bush 1.0, and Clinton. Lie down with the dogs in the Middle East who are claiming to be freedom fighters and you wake up with fleas in the form of terrorists.

[?]

Bush 2.0 deserves his fair share of the blame, as do Reagan, Bush 1.0, and Clinton.

And Rambo.  Don't forget about Rambo.

[SenorPotatoHead]

Kept us safe, Jeb (with an exclamation point!)? 
George and Dick came in swinging their wrecking ball, but "safe" is not the word for how they either kept, or left us.
Ol' Jeb hasn't a chance, not even the most wooden brained voter wants another Bush. 
So, which dogs in the race are folks out here rootin' on and supporting?

[the captain]

So, which dogs in the race are folks out here rootin' on and supporting?

No one in either major party seems remotely capable of inspiring any real support from me. In fact, without some serious changes to the political climate in this country, I struggle to imagine any party putting forward a candidate in the future who could get my real support, either. Unfortunately, the so-called "tell it like it is" candidates are even worse jokes than the candidates. Populism seems to attract the lowest common denominators, and this time around that includes a lot of xenophobia. That's no way to "make America great again..."

I guess I'll be investigating the third party candidates. Maybe I'll end up voting for the lesser of the two major evils, maybe I'll "waste my vote" on someone else. Whatever I do, I won't be thrilled, that's for sure.

[alf wiedersehen]

I'm with the Captain on this one.

[SenorPotatoHead]

No one in either major party seems remotely capable of inspiring any real support from me. In fact, without some serious changes to the political climate in this country, I struggle to imagine any party putting forward a candidate in the future who could get my real support, either. Unfortunately, the so-called "tell it like it is" candidates are even worse jokes than the candidates. Populism seems to attract the lowest common denominators, and this time around that includes a lot of xenophobia. That's no way to "make America great again..."

I guess I'll be investigating the third party candidates. Maybe I'll end up voting for the lesser of the two major evils, maybe I'll "waste my vote" on someone else. Whatever I do, I won't be thrilled, that's for sure.

There hasn't been a single candidate since i began voting at age 18 who I really liked - other than third party/outsider candidates.   I like Bernie Sanders, however.  Though I wish he had remained Independent and not joined the Dems.  I suppose he thought he had to do that to even have a shot - seeing as third party candidates are pretty much excluded from participating in debates.   Ultimately though, it isn't really about the one candidate - it's the whole system.   Mr. Smith may go to Washington, but he will be swallowed by the corruption in short order.

[Jim V.]

Bush 2.0 deserves his fair share of the blame, as do Reagan, Bush 1.0, and Clinton. Lie down with the dogs in the Middle East who are claiming to be freedom fighters and you wake up with fleas in the form of terrorists.

AB-SO-LUTLEY!

[Heysaboda]

Yeah....Dubya kept us safe all right. Except for that one day. Can't quite remember which. 

By the end of Bushie's term, the USA economy was in a CRATER, and goldurned effing CRATER.  Essentially a second Depression.  So, no, Chimpie McBushie did NOT keep us safe.

GEEZ

[Douchepool]

9/11 is the result of failed foreign policy pursued by the U.S. from 1953 onward.

[Emily]

9/11 is the result of failed foreign policy pursued by the U.S. from 1953 onward.

I have to agree with this, though I'd take it at least as far back as the Monroe Doctrine.

[Douchepool]

Intervening in the Middle East has led to moderate governments (like it or not, Mossadegh, Gaddafi, and Hussein were SECULAR leaders who kept extremists in check) being overthrown by U.S.-backed coups designed to put radicals in power. Failed foreign policy all around. I don't know how much the Monroe Doctrine really had to do with Islamist blowback in the U.S.; I'd argue next to none. The Monroe Doctrine was certainly used in recent history to justify overthrowing leftist governments in South America, but how much blowback has really been seen from that? It worked wonders in Chile.

[Emily]

Intervening in the Middle East has led to moderate governments (like it or not, Mossadegh, Gaddafi, and Hussein were SECULAR leaders who kept extremists in check) being overthrown by U.S.-backed coups designed to put radicals in power. Failed foreign policy all around. I don't know how much the Monroe Doctrine really had to do with Islamist blowback in the U.S.; I'd argue next to none. The Monroe Doctrine was certainly used in recent history to justify overthrowing leftist governments in South America, but how much blowback has really been seen from that? It worked wonders in Chile.

I think the Monroe Doctrine basically established the approach of US foreign policy still followed to this day by both major parties: when dealing with economically weaker nations, we prefer to ally with dictatorships and extremists who will allow us cheap access to resources, allowing the dictators and oligarchs to gain tremendous personal wealth at the expense of their general population, than with democracies and moderates who will demand a fair price for their resources.

[Peter Reum]

The Middle East has been a quagmire since the Sunni/Shiite schism in the 8th Century. No amount of  foreign engagement will ever change the enmity between those sects. Our addiction to oil has led to our getting involved with regimes that are an anathema to our Constitution and form of government. Nearly every problem we have faced in that region has been relayed to the schism and these two sects of Islam. We need to disengage with this part of the world and mind our own business. We are feeling in the problems our own nation faces. We need to focus on those and let the Islamic world resolve their centuries long dispute.

[Emily]

Our addiction to tropical fruit, coffee, tropical hardwoods, and precious metals led to the same in Latin America. It is not particular to the Middle East.
Europe has had as much intramural warring in the last millennium as the Middle East. That schism between Protestants and Catholics, you know.

[Douchepool]

Such is the problem with economic protectionism - it inevitably leads to conflict.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

So, which dogs in the race are folks out here rootin' on and supporting?

No one in either major party seems remotely capable of inspiring any real support from me. In fact, without some serious changes to the political climate in this country, I struggle to imagine any party putting forward a candidate in the future who could get my real support, either. Unfortunately, the so-called "tell it like it is" candidates are even worse jokes than the candidates. Populism seems to attract the lowest common denominators, and this time around that includes a lot of xenophobia. That's no way to "make America great again..."

I guess I'll be investigating the third party candidates. Maybe I'll end up voting for the lesser of the two major evils, maybe I'll "waste my vote" on someone else. Whatever I do, I won't be thrilled, that's for sure.

Your vote for a third party candidate, you might as well vote Republican. They already control the House and Senate via Citizen's United and gerrymandering.
Because if they get control of the White House,  we will see destruction of the EPA, the start of Social Security being dismantled, huge tax breaks for Corporations and the rich, the death of the middle classs, the end of a woman's right to choose, a right wing corporate slanted Suptreme Court for the next 30 years, unchecked CO2 emissions and unchecked global warming, the death of renewable energy, the end of affordable health care, another Middle East war, the rapid increase of poverty as programs are slashed as the military budget balloons,  more mass shootings,  and our infrastructure conntinuing to crumble.

Apathy is not the answer. If you are not voting "for" someone, atleast vote "against" the dooming of our Nation from the Corporate controlled Republican party!

[the captain]

I completely disagree with that idea, not because it mightn't end up accurate from a practical perspective, but because it perpetuates a corrupt two-party system. If sufficient people acted based on their real beliefs and opinions, they get something closer to what they want (for good or bad). When people hold their noses to vote for the second-stinkiest trash, they get stinky trash.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

I completely disagree with that idea, not because it mightn't end up accurate from a practical perspective, but because it perpetuates a corrupt two-party system. If sufficient people acted based on their real beliefs and opinions, they get something closer to what they want (for good or bad). When people hold their noses to vote for the second-stinkiest trash, they get stinky trash.

Gore lost Florida, and the election, because of third party candidate Ralph Nader. So we ended up with a severely slanted right wing Supreme Court and Citizens United. Thus now massive money in politics.  We got the Irag War, a huge swing back into coal and oil, a concerted effort away from renewable energy, corruption of the clean water act, and a collapsed economy, just for starters.  So those that voted for Nader screwed us all!

I do wish we had a real 3rd party system but right now a vote for Bernie as an independent, for example, gives us Jeb or Rubio, and then we are truly and completely f***ed!

[Douchepool]

Actually, in 1992 the third-party vote gave the election to Clinton. Ross Perot was the ultimate troll.

[the captain]

ORR, while Nader's campaign is popularly blamed for Gore's loss, there's quite a bit of credible information that says it didn't: enough Nader voters probably would have voted Bush in the key states that it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

You also are weighing the flaws of an actual administration against the presumed strengths of optimistically seen would-have-been administration.

And as TRBB said, 3rd party spoilers can spoil either way. I don't think I said my 3rd party vote (if I eventually chose to go that route) would be for Sanders. It could pull from either side, hypothetically.

My stance is unchanged: people need to vote with their brains in sufficient numbers to topple the 2-party grip on our nation. There won't ever be a time (barring massive event) when the population can reasonably expect a third party to be a viable challenger without starting the process.

[Jim V.]

Actually, in 1992 the third-party vote gave the election to Clinton. Ross Perot was the ultimate troll.

Actually that's a popular misconception. If you look at the polls after Perot weirdly dropped out for that small period of time, Clinton was doing even better.

But the Republicans like to use the Perot thing to make the Clinton presidency seem less "valid."

[Emily]

Actually, in 1992 the third-party vote gave the election to Clinton. Ross Perot was the ultimate troll.

Actually that's a popular misconception. If you look at the polls after Perot weirdly dropped out for that small period of time, Clinton was doing even better.

But the Republicans like to use the Perot thing to make the Clinton presidency seem less "valid."

It's interesting; that's an ongoing and peculiarly Republican theme I think, trying to delegitimize the opposition through innuendo.

[SurfRiderHawaii]

ORR, while Nader's campaign is popularly blamed for Gore's loss, there's quite a bit of credible information that says it didn't: enough Nader voters probably would have voted Bush in the key states that it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

You also are weighing the flaws of an actual administration against the presumed strengths of optimistically seen would-have-been administration.

And as TRBB said, 3rd party spoilers can spoil either way. I don't think I said my 3rd party vote (if I eventually chose to go that route) would be for Sanders. It could pull from either side, hypothetically.

My stance is unchanged: people need to vote with their brains in sufficient numbers to topple the 2-party grip on our nation. There won't ever be a time (barring massive event) when the population can reasonably expect a third party to be a viable challenger without starting the process.

I totally agree thst we need a viable 3 or 4 party system. But that isn't happening in 2016! Nader got 97,421 votes in Florida, mostly Democrats. You can't deny the realities of the W Presidency. It was a disaster in every respect and in 100 yearss he will be regarded  as one of our worst Presidents.

There is nothing presumed about the Republican agenda.  Yeah, I guess I presumed from your writings that you were liberal.

If you want an uncorrupted candidate, you have one, the Donald. Though it seems he  is running mainly to give himself a big tax break, and in doing so, tripling the national debt.

[the captain]

I'm probably not being as clear as id like to. I'm at work for a couple more hours but will try to respond properly after.