Proof they're all in it together: Bush family to vote for HRC

[UNT Eagles 2016]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/20/george-hw-bush-vote-clinton-reports-say/90723912/

George HW and Barbara for sure... George W likely as well as he said a few months ago he was "not in favor of Trump"... Wealthy powerful whites from career Democrats like Warren Buffett and Republicans like Mark Cuban to vote for HRC and Bill to get back in office... it's a battle of power vs. the people.


The establishment left, the establishment right... they're all in it together. 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012...all softball elections. Romney imposed the same damn shit as Obamacare in Massachusetts and was most likely lying in the campaign about repealing it, though he might have tweaked it a little he approved it for the most part because he invented it. It's a shame Bernie didn't win the nomination so we'd have a political overhaul no matter who won... Sigh...

Must fight the power by voting Trump, 2016.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

If you have a brain, and you actually use it, this is very important information. Why would the Bushes back Hitlery? They clearly don't care for the well-being of this country. Remember Bush Senior when he said "read my lips no new taxes". He broke that promise. How about Junior selling out conservatism to the pharmaceutical companies. The underlying theme is big government, global government and NWO. These are the reasons why we have to support Trump. We cannot continue to sell out to the globalists. Islam is here because the globalists make money wherever there is conflict. War is profitable for the globalists. Carnage wreckage and ruin... Soros, the Bushes the Clintons, OBOZO, Big banks, big Pharma, multi national corporations, they are all in this together. It is no longer a conspiracy theory. It is a conspiracy fact.

[boutons_deux]

So, Trash "cares about our country" ? :lol

damn, you rightwingnuts are fucking stupid.

[DarrinS]

Or, they just hate Trump. He was kind of a dick to Jeb, if you recall.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Or, they just hate Trump. He was kind of a dick to Jeb, if you recall.

A real conservative would vote for Trump simply because of the fate of the SCOTUS & wouldn't have put in left leaning moderate to be the chief justice of said court.

[boutons_deux]

A real conservative would vote for Trump simply because of the fate of the SCOTUS & wouldn't have put in left leaning moderate to be the chief justice of said court.

Roberts is CJ as long as he wants to be. He's still young, and still a nasty whore to BigCorp/1%.

What's immediately in play is the current 5th spot, plus the imminent retirement of Notorious RBG (who's heroically holding on for the next Pres).

[SpursforSix]

NWO Globalists. Was there any doubt.

[DarrinS]

A real conservative would vote for Trump simply because of the fate of the SCOTUS & wouldn't have put in left leaning moderate to be the chief justice of said court.

He's a NY Democrat trolling, tbh

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Roberts is CJ as long as he wants to be. He's still young, and still a nasty whore to BigCorp/1%.

What's immediately in play is the current 5th spot, plus the imminent retirement of Notorious RBG (who's heroically holding on for the next Pres).

I read an Onion article that RBG and her parents recently hosted an all-out party at her mansion, complete with loud music, dancing, beer pong and lots of alcohol. Good times.

[Sportcamper]

Jeb & John Kasich went after Saint Donald first, citing his lack of experience… Saint Donald undressing the two of them was some of the most entertaining moments in the history of political debates…SNL had a field day with it…Poor Poor Weak Jeb....:lol

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Jeb & John Kasich went after Saint Donald first, citing his lack of experience… Saint Donald undressing the two of them was some of the most entertaining moments in the history of political debates…SNL had a field day with it…Poor Poor Weak Jeb....:lol

Bush II winning sucked, but probably better than the alternative (Gore).

[boutons_deux]

Bush II winning sucked, but probably better than the alternative (Gore).

bullshit. I really doubt Gore would have had a dickhead Cheney + accomplices to lie, bully the CIA/NSA for "data" to get USA/UK to invade/occupy Iraq for BigOil.

Repugs made the USA, the planet less safe for BigOil's profits.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

bullshit. I really doubt Gore would have had a dickhead Cheney + accomplices to lie, bully the CIA/NSA for "data" to get USA/UK to invade/occupy Iraq for BigOil.

Repugs made the USA, the planet less safe for BigOil's profits.
The ultimate consumer benefiting is much more relevant than Big Oil profits. Also, I don't buy into the whole "anthropogenic global warming" bullshit. Even if it were true, it's not worth mortgaging the present and everything from car gas to power to plastic ware being significantly more expensive for everyone in the middle class and the poor.

[boutons_deux]

The ultimate consumer benefiting is much more relevant than Big Oil profits. Also, I don't buy into the whole "anthropogenic global warming" bullshit. Even if it were true, it's not worth mortgaging the present and everything from car gas to power to plastic ware being significantly more expensive for everyone in the middle class and the poor.

AGW from BigCarbon will cost the planet many, many $Ts, and as always, the poor (for which you are falsely concerned) will suffer the worst, and Ms will die.

How many US military, how many 100K or Ms of non-combattants, and how many MIC $Ts are you willing to sacrifice, waste so plastic is cheaper? :lol

goddam, you rightwingnuts are fucking stupid.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm fascinated by the idea that voting against Trump is something that only establishment politicians would do.

I'm also fascinated by the laughable idea that Trump, who readily admits to using his wealth to procure influence in policy-making and other realms of existing governmental structures, is not an establishment candidate. If Mark Cuban is the Establishment (as suggested in the OP), Trump is as well -- necessarily -- even if he's fooled a bunch of scared white folks into believing for now that he doesn't.

And if Candidate Obama said some of the patently false things that Candidate Trump has offered on the stump about basic constitutional issues (supporting Article XII, for instance), he would have been absolutely skewered by the Right. (Obama was absolutely run through the ringer for his "57 states" comment). Indeed, when Candidate Kerry said he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it in 2004, he was pilloried by the Right as a flip-flopper; Candidate Trump admits he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it, and he's praised by the Right as a man of searching intellect and discernment.

Whatever is true about our politics any more, the one thing that is absolutely true is that actual principle has no real place at the table right now.

[boutons_deux]

of course, Trash is privileged-from-birth, wealthy, New York insider.

Trash supporters believing that Trash is an outsider is more evidence they are stupid, conned, duped as fuck.

Essentially all his policies and appeals are 100% Repug establishment policies.

[FromWayDowntown]

With that, I applaud President Bush for his decision. It takes real principle to break with what is expected of you ideologically and to vote your conscience when the whole world is watching.

[CosmicCowboy]

With that, I applaud President Bush for his decision. It takes real principle to break with what is expected of you ideologically and to vote your conscience when the whole world is watching.

My guess is that it has more to do with spite for castrating Jeb in the primary.

[FromWayDowntown]

My guess is that it has more to do with spite for castrating Jeb in the primary.

Oh, so there's no way President Bush could look at Donald Trump and decide that all things considered, that particular candidate is unsuited for the White House?

Simple pettiness is, you say, the most likely justification guiding a former President's exercise of the franchise for an office that he knows far more about than any of us could?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh, so there's no way President Bush could look at Donald Trump and decide that all things considered, that particular candidate is unsuited for the White House?

Simple pettiness is, you say, the most likely justification guiding a former President's exercise of the franchise for an office that he knows far more about than any of us could?

Meh...I think he would be more likely to just not vote for President. Not that it will matter who he votes for in Texas.

[FromWayDowntown]

Meh...I think he would be more likely to just not vote for President. Not that it will matter who he votes for in Texas.

Cool dodge.

I'm still struck by the notion -- not specifically by you CC, but implied into your prior post -- that it would be illogical or unreasonable for anyone (and particularly a former President) to dispute Trump's qualifications to be President.

[TheGreatYacht]

Smart man. Country before party.

The far right disgusting inbreds will be pressed tho

[CosmicCowboy]

Cool dodge.

I'm still struck by the notion -- not specifically by you CC, but implied into your prior post -- that it would be illogical or unreasonable for anyone (and particularly a former President) to dispute Trump's qualifications to be President.

I didn't say that it was unreasonable for one to have an opinion that a candidate was unqualified.

I just suggested that in Bush/Trump case it might be more on the on the order of spite and butthurt over Trumps castration and total humiliation of Jeb. Jeb ended up as the laughingstock of the primary and the press had a field day pointing out that Jeb spent 50 million dollars per delegate (3) and basically ruined his future political career.

[clambake]

i think it was his brother that ruined his career.

[baseline bum]

i think it was his brother that ruined his career.

Pretty much

[mingus]

I'm fascinated by the idea that voting against Trump is something that only establishment politicians would do.

I'm also fascinated by the laughable idea that Trump, who readily admits to using his wealth to procure influence in policy-making and other realms of existing governmental structures, is not an establishment candidate. If Mark Cuban is the Establishment (as suggested in the OP), Trump is as well -- necessarily -- even if he's fooled a bunch of scared white folks into believing for now that he doesn't.

And if Candidate Obama said some of the patently false things that Candidate Trump has offered on the stump about basic constitutional issues (supporting Article XII, for instance), he would have been absolutely skewered by the Right. (Obama was absolutely run through the ringer for his "57 states" comment). Indeed, when Candidate Kerry said he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it in 2004, he was pilloried by the Right as a flip-flopper; Candidate Trump admits he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it, and he's praised by the Right as a man of searching intellect and discernment.

Whatever is true about our politics any more, the one thing that is absolutely true is that actual principle has no real place at the table right now.

I agree with pretty much everything you said here wholeheartedly, but I think the use double-standards, lies/slander & personal attacks (of both party ideology, constituency & candidates) as a way of getting your message to voters has at this point reached a level that is beyond damaging, it's destructive. Both parties do it.

Trump makes himself an easier target 'cause he's so proud & fascinated by himself & what he he's accomplished (& to the point of self-delusion, so that he's even proud of what he hasn't accomplished, but truly thinks he has), that the stupid, hateful & unfiltered shit he says gets makes the biggest ripples in the media.

But Clinton, I believe, really is just as fucking disgusting as that guy. I think the biggest story of controversy & moral corruptness in this entire election has been the virtual non-story that was the DNC undermining Sanders' & his voters in secrecy. Because if you can't even trust that your & the collective vote mean anything the entire system just falls apart.

[xrayzebra]

Now isn't it something for the dimm-0-craps on here to say Trump is not qualified when they voted for a community organizer and prepared to vote for a dumbass blonde who could not answer the phone at 3 in the morning while one of her ambassadors was being murdered. Although she is good at giving 20 minute speeches, while worth nothing, gets millions for them.

[ElNono]

Now isn't it something for the dimm-0-craps on here to say Trump is not qualified when they voted for a community organizer and prepared to vote for a dumbass blonde who could not answer the phone at 3 in the morning while one of her ambassadors was being murdered. Although she is good at giving 20 minute speeches, while worth nothing, gets millions for them.

Bush 41 is dimm-0-craps?

One thing doesn't disqualify the other. It may very well be that Shillary is just as unqualified as Trump, although, despite what you might like or not about Barry, I get the feeling he will be remembered as a much better president than any of these two.

[ElNono]

I'm fascinated by the idea that voting against Trump is something that only establishment politicians would do.

I'm also fascinated by the laughable idea that Trump, who readily admits to using his wealth to procure influence in policy-making and other realms of existing governmental structures, is not an establishment candidate. If Mark Cuban is the Establishment (as suggested in the OP), Trump is as well -- necessarily -- even if he's fooled a bunch of scared white folks into believing for now that he doesn't.

And if Candidate Obama said some of the patently false things that Candidate Trump has offered on the stump about basic constitutional issues (supporting Article XII, for instance), he would have been absolutely skewered by the Right. (Obama was absolutely run through the ringer for his "57 states" comment). Indeed, when Candidate Kerry said he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it in 2004, he was pilloried by the Right as a flip-flopper; Candidate Trump admits he was for the war in Iraq before he was against it, and he's praised by the Right as a man of searching intellect and discernment.

Whatever is true about our politics any more, the one thing that is absolutely true is that actual principle has no real place at the table right now.

The "establishment" cop-out is the old "insider" cop-out, previously known as the "RINO" cop-out... it's also what brought us hits like "compromise is bad" and "let's shut down the government over petty shit"...

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Bush 41 is dimm-0-craps?

One thing doesn't disqualify the other. It may very well be that Shillary is just as unqualified as Trump, although, despite what you might like or not about Barry, I get the feeling he will be remembered as a much better president than any of these two.

Barry, Bush and Bill Clinton all had their goods and bads but these two will be mostly bad.

[ElNono]

Barry, Bush and Bill Clinton all had their goods and bads but these two will be mostly bad.

I concur. Hopefully a one term presidency.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I concur. Hopefully a one term presidency.

Actually to rephrase my post, I should have said "Bushes" and included Reagan's name in there... Reagan was overrated, he got way too much credit for the fall of the USSR when in fact it fell apart due to the economics of spreading themselves out way too thin in the satellite countries. Also, Reagan started a dangerous trend that persists today with Obama, which was that of siding with the dangerous jihadis ("mujaheddin") in Afghanistan who wanted to murder us, the Russians, and everyone else non-conformant to their faith simply because of religion. He should have fostered better relations and alliances with Gorbyachev and the rest of the secular world.

People blame Obama for "sympathizing" with the jihadists because of Obama's heritage and Muslim father, but it's actually more like Obama just trying to be diplomatic with the allies he was dealt. Reagan was the guy who strengthened alliances with our enemies because everyone had been in such panic at the time over the oil shortage crisis.

[Xevious]

I think the stakes are too great for even conservatives to vote Trump. Hillary is not likeable or trustworthy in any respect, but you kind of know what you're going to get with her. People who think that Trump's a serious Republican candidate are getting trolled hard. Just look through his personal history and business dealings and tell me with a straight face that he'll be a fair president without any conflicts of interest. Best case scenario with this shitty election is a one-term Hillary while the GOP gets their shit together and fields a real candidate in four years.

[boutons_deux]

"fields a real candidate in four years."

let's see:

totally shitty, war criminal, C-student, failed businessman dubya lost in 2000 and was elected by Scalia, and

just barely won in 2004 as a "war time president" with smallest victory margin of any incumbent,

then McLiar was destroyed,

then Bishop Gekko eas destroyed,

now the ridiculous, lying, grifter, fraudster clown Trash.

What are the chances BigCorp/1%/VRWC, or the revolting Trash supporters of today, put up an electable candidate in 2016?

[101A]

t... He should have fostered better relations and alliances with Gorbyachev and the rest of the secular world.


He would have done this because he knew that Mikhail would take over two years AFTER Reagan left office?

[UNT Eagles 2016]

I think the stakes are too great for even conservatives to vote Trump. Hillary is not likeable or trustworthy in any respect, but you kind of know what you're going to get with her. People who think that Trump's a serious Republican candidate are getting trolled hard. Just look through his personal history and business dealings and tell me with a straight face that he'll be a fair president without any conflicts of interest. Best case scenario with this shitty election is a one-term Hillary while the GOP gets their shit together and fields a real candidate in four years.

Two caveats:
1) SCOTUS
2) It's hard to beat an incumbent.

[ElNono]

Two caveats:
1) SCOTUS
2) It's hard to beat an incumbent.

Those two caveats apply to Trump too. It's a lose-lose situation.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Those two caveats apply to Trump too. It's a lose

Who would Trump put in SCOTUS? A hamster?

[Warlord23]

Both candidates are shitty, but what sets them apart is how much damage they can do at their worst. Clinton is liable to favor corporations, enrich herself, expand drone strikes and deploy more ground troops in the Middle East. Trump could do all of those things, plus start a recession, break up NATO, let an environmental catastrophe happen and, most importantly, dumb down politics even more than it already is for generations to come.