>America voted Bush for 2 terms
>People think America won't let Trump win
WTF?
>>56649316
It's crazy that Bush invaded 2 countries in his first term as president. Has any other president ever done something as drastic as this?
He has so much blood on his hands.
>>56649525
>implying bush wasn't Cheney's puppet
The guy wasn't perfect however he couldn't possibly compare to the unmitigated disaster of 2009 to present. For all his faults, I never felt that Bush was a literal traitor who hated this country and all that it represents.
"A nation can survive its fools and even its ambitious, but no nation can survive the enemy within its gates."
-- Cicero
>>56651328
2/10
gb2 Faux News faggot
>>56651328
>Obama was worse than bush
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>56651328
(You)
>>56651328
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/261109-obamas-foreign-donors
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/24/obama-campaigns-illegal-foreign-donations/
http://doggyviral.com/hope-shady-campaign-change-buzz-builds-about-obamas-donorscandal/
https://pjmedia.com/blog/report-obama-campaign-soliciting-foreign-donations-again/
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/08/obama-bundler-tied-to-chinese-government/
Just who funded this president exactly. Chances are it's not Americans or people who have America's best interests in mind.
Stuff like the bailouts at the end was a pretty bad mistake although you should also consider what party controlled Congress in Bush's final two years.
Bush was not anywhere near Trump tier. Didn't Bush actually get like half of the Hispanic vote?
>>56651819
In 2004, he got 40 or so percent.
>>56649525
Reagan and Carter tßh
>>56649316
We supposedly "change"d according to Obama
A better comparison would be Reagen, except he got a fair amount of positive press.
Trump is like a mix of Reagan and outsider populists like Huey Long.
didn't the Saudi royal family talk Bush into invading Iraq? shit, what president allows a tin pot Third world petrostate to guide his foreign policy decisions?
>>56652303
You'd be surprised how often that happens. WWI got rolling because Russia committed itself to rescuing (read: establishing regional dominance) over a bunch of Balkan shitholesl
I can think of plenty of scenarios in which that quote is not only reasonable but genuinely funny
>>56652236
>except he got a fair amount of positive press
>>56651520
Bush never stooped to this point.
>>56651736
Soros did. First when he run as for senator, then when halfway through his bid for presidency, Soros switched from Hillary to Obama.
>>56652303
>Third world petrostate to guide his foreign policy
Do you even know how the ME was form? Anglos did everything and will do everything to own those lands
Ragheads dictating our foreign policy?
>>56653415
Celebrating civil rights is a low point?
>>56653415
>2016
>being homphobic
>>56653471
He was one source but it seems there were probably other very very shady foreign donors as well. Also all the Soros-funded rioters outside Trump campaign rallies. These are all the modern equivalent of the Brown Shirts.
>>56649316
Its going to be a weird election and I think it will come down to the Midwest, with a possible resutl being pic related
>inb4 oh wow delusion
I don't even support Trump
>>56651520
fuck off
>>56651520
Obama was worse than Bush, at least Bush did something other than sit with his thumbs up his ass for 6/8 years
>>56653471
>Soros
Literally one of the slimiest kikes in all of politics.
>>56653415
Basically, this is the Marxist strategem of deconstructivism whereby you mock and diminish a nation or culture's cherished symbols. Just like Obama learned from his Harvard professors. It takes on various forms like Jesus in a jar of urine, Andy Warhol's mindless paintings of soup cans, feminists smearing period blood on a canvas and calling it art, etc.
In of itself, gay marriage is deconstructivism since its purpose is to mock the entire institution of marriage because the nuclear family is one of the building blocks of bourgeois society.
>>56649316
republicans can't win elections. at least not anymore. trump needs to become a democrat if he really wants to win.
>>56653638
You should probably take a break from /pol/ for awhile, bro
>>56653557
>this actually is a plausible election for Trump
He's gonna have to start shilling protections for the Mid-west and sucking hispanic dick.
>>56653664
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_elections,_2014
>>56653720
This. You have gone in a little too far bro.
>>56653594
>Starting 2 wars was a good thing
It takes a special kind of retard to believe Obama is worse than bush
>>56653664
>republicans can't win elections. at least not anymore
Nope and the idea that they thought Jeb Bush could win an election to anything but city dogcatcher is proof.
Trump should just run as an independent anyway; he'd still easily win at the rate he's going now.
>>56653720
>>56653786
Go read about Antonio Gramsci to know how this all works.
>>56653788
Tbh Obama started 1 and let another two form lmao dude weed
Our future president is gonna have to fix the problems he pushed aside for them.
>>56653664
>Republicans can't win
yes they can, Obama literally got 51% in 2012, Republicans have absolutely dominated the past midterm, the Democrats are all out of black guys (their 1 presentable one was used in 2008/2012) and are left with an old hag that doesn't get her party excited. There is nothing pointing towards Republicans being unable to win. In the future unless something happens to stop the rapid Hispanic demographic growth the Republicans will have to go hard to capture that vote while its still developing or force a new party system (and with the results of this election cycle its more likely the latter will happen 2bh). But this won't reach a point where the current Republican party cannot win until at least 2030 when Hispanics will start to reach levels where their vote will be too big even with their absurdly low turnout (lowest turnout rate besides maybe Asians I think)
I am not saying they have a guaranteed election, I'm saying that it will be a long time before the current party cannot win.
>>56653745
the Midwest is probably the least hispanic portion of the country. The South is pretty much assured for him so thats not a problem, but he has been sucking the Midwest's dick since minute 1. I'm sure his original plan was this 2bh.
>>56653788
I never said the wars were a good thing, I was attempting to imply that Obama was so profusely mediocre that even someone as shitty as Bush is better.
They were both pretty bad in the end.
>>56649525
You're kind of discounting the political climate. I don't think that could have happened without something as extreme as 9/11.
>>56651328
Just because you don't agree with him doesn't make him a traitor to the country. There's a pretty large portion of the country that feels fairly well represented by him. Take off the tinfoil hat, m8.
>>56653557
It will be close no matter who runs. I wouldn't be surprised to see Indiana (my home state) go blue again like in '08 if Trump gets the nomination because a lot of moderates there are really turned off of Trump.
KY will probably still stay red because Hillary hates coal, and Kentucky loves it.
OH may be one that is teetering on the edge because of their support for Kasich over Trump.
During the 1960s the New Left emerged which sought to replace the old labor-oriented socialism with a new dialectic that had women, non-white people, gays, and whatnot as the proletariat.
People like Soros were central to this; both him and right wing conservatives (oddly enough) wished to see Soviet communism dismantled since in the mind of the New Left, Moscow no longer stood for socialism and world revolution or anything but preserving their own security.
>>56654067
2bh I think trump has Ohio and Indiana down hard, the states that might be a little tough might potentially be Florida (due to the large Hispanic population but because most of the Hispanics there have 0 chance of deportation I doubt it will affect much) and then Michigan/Pennsylvania/Virginia (which has has to win one of in order to overall win, its even darker if he gets Virginia but not the other two as he will require Iowa, which isn't guaranteed for him)
It will be an equally tough route for Hillary though as this is a new threat that I honestly do not believe she is properly equipped to fight at all. I think she will do very poorly in the debates, and it will cause a lot of trouble for her. She has it hard too because she needs to hang on to ALL 3 of Michigan/Pennsylvania/Virginia as if she loses a single one of those she will either lose or have a huge chance of losing.
>>56651328
El oh el
Obama is too ineffective to destroy the US even if he wanted to
>>56653415
Why does that trigger you?
>>56649316
Bush was an ally if polish people, trump is not
>>56651819
Correct.
If Bush did not do as well with Hispanics, he would have lost to Kerry. Trump has a tough road to hoe.
>>56654067
I think Obama was better than Bush by a long shot, but c'mon. Have you seen Obama's stance on privacy and the NSA? On mass data collection? He's the worst kind of hardliner statist and he supports the FBI's efforts to force Apple to break their encryption.
>>56654451
>I think Obama was better than Bush by a long shot
Do ho ho ho.
>>56654237
Ohio and Indiana both went in for Obama in '08, and Ohio did it again the following election. I don't see any reason to count them as Trump wins at this point. I would probably count them red if any other Republican got the nomination, but Trump is just too divisive.
I do agree with you about Florida, but it Florida always seems to be a clusterfuck. I live in central Florida right now and I have no clue what will happen.
Hillary will struggle in debates, but Trump isn't going to win many more people than he already has. He does more to alienate moderates and swing voters than Hillary does, and I think it's going to come down to that more than anything.
>>56654451
This president endorsed TPP and the USSC ruling that corporations are people. He also supported allowing companies to sue your ISP if you download their copyrighted content.
>>56649316
Bush did not have the level of opposition that Trump has, who's demonized by media (both traditional and social) like no other candidate I've ever seen
His own party is openly conspiring to prevent him from getting the nomination
>>56654451
How do you think the NSA shit got put in place?
See: Patriot Act.
The gov't surveillance as we have it is the result of both of their presidencies.
I feel that the DHS was a large mistake and I do not think that creating it was sound judgement on Bush's part.
>>56654564
Before someone responds to this with
>UGH TYPICAL DELUSIONAL TRUMP-SUPPORTER
I don't support Trump, I just don't believe Hillary is some sort of Democrat god
>Trump won't win many more people than he already has
he is constantly winning more people
>They both went for Obama, Ohio did it again
Ohio did it the second time purely because of black people, and again Trump has shown so far to do amazingly well in Great Lakes states, which is where the heaviest fighting will be, it is also Clinton's weak spot comparatively.
I honestly think it will just come down to the Midwest and exactly how badly Trump crushes the debates with Hillary.
Also using the previous elections to litmus this one in the case of a Trump nomination is poor beyond the core Republican states in my pic obviously going red beyond doubt, due to Trumps unorthodox appeal.
Either way it will make for great SNL skits, I might actually watch it again.
>>56654604
>the GOP prefers a candidate more aligned to the party's policies instead of the demagogue who was a registered Democrat not long ago
wow
>>56654793
>the GOP prefers a candidate more aligned to the party's policies instead of the demagogue who was a registered Democrat not long ago
Move this to 1980 and same thing. Back then they wanted GHW Bush for president, shit, they even thought about dusting off Gerald Ford for another go.
>>56654793
>the GOP prefers a candidate more aligned to the party's policies
Which are 90% identical to that of Democrats aka neocon statist world police gibberish.
>>56654611
Right, but instead of simply allowing it to continue, which I wouldn't have liked but could've seen as him choosing his battles, he's actively encouraged the expansion of the surveillance state and anti-privacy culture in the government. I feel like he's worse than Bush for it, because at least Bush's administration was reacting to the aftermath of an obvious massive, tangible threat.
>>56654752
There's a difference between the primary dates and actually winning new supporters. Just about everyone has made up their mind on him. Most of my friends are republicans, but only one is voting Trump. The rest are voting anybody but.
With his own party working to undermine him, I just can't see him winning far beyond the core red states.
With how much dissonance is going on within his own party, it wouldn't take a Democrat god to defeat him, it would take somebody that doesn't scare most sane people. The only bad thing is Hillary borders on that.
>>56654861
I don't understand why but I find the image of them physically opening a cabinet to bull out Gerald and then literally dusting him off before pushing him out the door extremely entertaining.
Bush bent over for the Hispanics
>>56654793
Not saying it's not in their interest, just pointing out the unlikelihood of Trump getting to run for president let alone getting elected
Didn't he say he wouldn't run as an independent too?
In all elections since 1928, only three of them had a proper small government conservative run on the GOP ticket (1964, 1980, and 1984).
>>56654950
not voting for him in a primary does not mean he won't get their vote. ffs if every Bernie supporter stayed home the election would be a slam dunk.
Also you are severely glorifying Hillary. The reality is that she is an extremely mediocre candidate.
Needless to say, the GOP didn't really like Reagan back in the day. In fact the party elders even suggested that a special "council" headed by Richard Nixon be appointed to guide his hand because in their opinion, Reagan was too stupid to actually be president himself.
Hillary is just sad. Even listening to her speak, she sounds like she's on death's door. She has no energy, no passion, nothing. I question if she actually even wants this job.
>>56655069
too stupid or too Alzheimer's?
>>56655069
Well Reagan was also a huge savage and the party was butthurt about him so bad that they worship him now
>>56655012
Yes, she is extremely mediocre, and I don't really like her. But the difference between Hillary/Bernie contest is that Bernie doesn't cause the same kind of within party rift. Most Bernie supporters would have no issue going out to vote Hillary.
Point being, I'm not glorifying her, I'm saying Trump is too far right for much of the Republican party, and the rift he has caused is so great that moderate Republicans are much more likely to stay home than a dem-socialist would in the case of Hillary.
It sounds like you're operating under the assumption that all Republicans would still vote Republican for Trump, which just isn't true.
>>56655128
He is telling a half-truth
The party originally didn't like Reagan when he was first rising and he had a vaguely similar rise to Trump in some hazy certain aspects but I don't think that party elder story is correct.
>>56653415
Omg that's happened... I have no respect to you anymore guys.
>>56655155
I'm not assuming all Republicans will vote for Trump I'm running under the assumption that in relation to how the party votes it will be the exact fucking same as every time, the supporters of that party's candidate in addition to most the other guys in the party who stomach their non-favorite in order to prevent the opposing party from winning (and this is already starting unless you have purposefully chosen to avoid reading news) and some guys switch parties for an election. The only exceptional thing I believe will happen is that there will be a lot more of party switching BOTH ways causing this to be a very unorthodox election.
In relation to how people in the party will vote this isn't very exceptional beyond the fact that a lot of people will switch both ways. Trump has wider appeal than you might think.
>>56655130
They really don't though. The GOP has tried to airbrush RR out of their official history. One example being a docu I saw about the collapse of communism where they interview GHW Bush who rather smugly tries to take credit for that while ignoring the fact that his administration did things like tell the Baltic states to not declare independence from the USSR because too risky. He doesn't once mention Reagan the whole interview.
Guys like the elder Bush who were closely connected with the intelligence community really didn't want the Cold War to end anyway because they needed the Soviet boogeyman to justify their annual budgets. Note that after 1990, defense/intelligence budgets were drastically cut back and the CIA et al were lost and had no real idea what to do with themselves.
>>56655364
I was making a joke man
>>56655155
In addition to my above post I would like to highlight that Trump supporters are actually according to polls more resistant to voting for non-Trump due to their nature.
>>56654997
>small government
>1980, 1984
Anon I...
>>56655474
Observe what party controlled Congress continuously from 1953 to 1994.
>>56653415
You don't take dicks up your arse, yet you are the butthurt one, explain this americlaps
Yes they didn't like Reagan but the GOP of that time wasn't even so asshurt that they literally refused to nominate the guy.
>>56655564
Politics are 100x more extreme now than in the 80s. Mostly because of Obama.
>>56653415
>a political move on a sjw like society
>while not actually accomplished some of his electoral sjw promises (like stopping wars and closing guantanamo)
what's the problem that you have with some lights anon?
>>56655202
Reagan was an ex-Democrat who admired FDR and Kennedy and the New Deal and of course they didn't like that.
Reading you guys talking about Reagan is very informative desu
I always pictured him as beloved by his party all the time and it puzzled me a lot
nah mates gore 2000
>>56655889
nah it took time for him to warm up to them an even then it was mostly due to luck.
>>56655799
he changed his views on the New Deal, learned to criticise it while noticing the so-called "good intentions" of this programme
not that I would agree with this, but as a someone with a reputation of a reaganite I had to reply
>>56655889
the actual grassroots conservative base are the people who deified Reagan. the GOP smoke filled room hacks like Karl Rove the Puppetmaster are neocons and they never liked him at all.
>>56655799
"People don't understand me. I'm not trying to undo the New Deal. I remind them that I voted for FDR four times. What I'm trying to undo is the Great Society."
>>56655364
>Note that after 1990, defense/intelligence budgets were drastically cut back and the CIA et al were lost and had no real idea what to do with themselves.
Thank God for Mudslimes.
>>56656132
Yeah...that. They knew all along that the Soviet Union was not as dangerous as it looked (shit, the CIA of all people should have had a pretty realistic estimate of Soviet strength and capabilities), but they needed to justify their annual budgets.
Even when Carter was still president, internal documents circulated in the Kremlin painted a grim picture that the confrontation with the US was not winnable in the long run since they just couldn't match us for resources, technology, or an appealing ideological message.
the people that voted for bush may not be the same people that are voting for trump and so on
and it's not even election yet
>>56656132
Osama Bin Laden was the greatest gift the defense/intelligence community could have ever had.
>>56656225
Yeah but Reagan was a great actor that could really give a flashy show of killing those godless commies
>>56656225
Funny story - during 1981, the US Navy brazenly conducted a series of training exercises in the Arctic Ocean just off the Soviet coastline, all of which went completely undetected. This if nothing proved the weakness of Soviet radar/detection abilities.
>>56656273
See now, he actually went out there and said the USSR could be beaten so let's do it. The military-industrial complex knew it all along but they wanted to preserve the status quo.
It's fairly safe to guess that if GHW Bush were elected in 1980 instead of Reagan (or if the assassination attempt on Reagan had succeeded and Bush becomes president 8 years early) then the Cold War could well still be going in 2016.
>>56656382
I'm not saying he didn't kill them, he certainly pushed them over the edge, but I am saying that it was inevitable unless Gorbachev was a better leader
