(03-06-2020 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  HW kept us from Michael Dukakis. And if not for conservatives like Perot and Buchanan, would have kept us from Clinton. W. kept us from Gore. Jeb was the anti-Pete Wilson. He helped turn Florida red. W., of course, completed the Republican takeover of Texas state govenrment.

If you think Bush was better for the country than Clinton...
you are what some accuse democrats on this board. Party over country

I think Clinton was better for the country than either Bush. In my lifetime, I would rank him second to Reagan.

GHWB was probably the most disappointing president to me. He had everything--intelligence, incredible experience, just should have been great for the job--but wasn't. Very nice man, and Barbara was an incredible woman. And the Berlin Wall fell to kick off his presidency. But somehow he just didn't figure out what to do once the old paradigm fell. And if anybody should have been able to, it was GHWB. But he just didn't.

It may be a surprise, but the president who did better than I expected was Obama. Turns out he was too much of an arrogant, narcissistic a-hole, and he had been lots of things but he had never actually DONE anything, so he didn't know how to work with people to get his socialist/communist agenda through. By being essentially incompetent, he turned out to be a lot better than I had thought. A really competent politician with Obama's agenda could have done the country a world of harm.

Jimmy Carter was the most disappointing to me. I voted for that idiot.

Although incredibly feckless he was probably one of the all around best human beings to inhabit the office. He was kinder and gentler before there was such a thing and it was what made him so ineffective.

(03-06-2020 11:01 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  kudos to JR.....post #31 is about as good as it gets tying it all together....

Yep.

(03-06-2020 11:32 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:29 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  HW kept us from Michael Dukakis. And if not for conservatives like Perot and Buchanan, would have kept us from Clinton. W. kept us from Gore. Jeb was the anti-Pete Wilson. He helped turn Florida red. W., of course, completed the Republican takeover of Texas state govenrment.

If you think Bush was better for the country than Clinton...

you are what some accuse democrats on this board. Party over country

That is how the Deep State elected its presidents guys.

Dukakis was the teaser pony for H.W. Perot simply hated Bush's guts so you got the other Deep Stater in Clinton early. Gore is pure Deep State so he was the teaser pony for W. McCain was the teaser pony for Obama and he picked Palin to handicap his own chances. You saw how fast both his and Obama's asses got to Washington to urge Too Big to Fail didn't you.

Had MItt the Schitt won the primary he would have been the Teaser Pony for Hillary. Trump like Reagan before him, and like Carter before Reagan were not Deep Staters. The Dems did in Carter. The RNC forced Reagan to choose between Ford and Bush (both Deep State going back to the Warren Commission Days) and of course Hinkley gets off a shot at Ronnie in one of the poorest efforts ever by the Secret Service (well the poorest since Dallas) and we would have had Bush a lot sooner if Ronnie wasn't tough and got a great civilian Doctor. And now Trump who is the victim of the most abusive and corrupt attack on a president by the DOJ ever.

Heads need to roll at the DOJ/FBI. With Bush daddy dead, W. done, and Jeb out of the public favor, and Hillary defeated and her husband linked to Epstein, McCain dead, and Pelosi, Schumer, Romney, and Sessions all outed now's the time to clean the damn House / Senate / and appoint a much higher % of the judiciary.

But anybody who thinks that the Deep State doesn't have ringers and sleepers in both parties is just plain stupid. They do. You can't tell the players by Blue/Red and Dem/Rep. You can only tell them by what they do. When you can't trust a damned word any of these Washington anal skin tags say you judge them by the company they keep, the corporations they back, and by what they do.

So far I have my eye on Manchin as being one who is not Deep State and is trying to survive. Tlaib, AOC, Bernie, and some of the others aren't Deep State either, but Schiff sure as hell is.

Those on the Left and Right who play for Team Washington DC are Deep Staters. They are all very P.C. like the corporations who back them, are tied to the intelligence and law enforcement agencies because that is how they maintain power, and they serve the corporations who back the Federal Reserve and drive our deficits higher and higher because it profits those companies and not our people or nation. And they don't give a hoot about gay rights, anti-gay agendas, pro life, pro abortion, pro gun, anti gun, or anything else defined as issues as long as it is business as usual. And the ACA was an instrument to drive the nation deeper into debt which gives the FED backers more money and more power and keeps them in charge, as did the trade imbalance that DJT has helped to fix.

As long as they can pit the true conservatives against the idiot clown show left and maintain gridlock they keep control of the process of government. They are the ones who divide the nation. And it is by design. Their purpose is to use the MSM to hide from the public what is really going on and to put as many Antifa and Klan episodes as possible on the evening news and to harangue Donald Trump who is collectively "as these creeps keep saying" the most dangerous president ever. And they are correct. He's the most dangerous President their cabal has ever faced, but he is 100% for the American citizen and the sooner the Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, and Whites figure this out the better off the country will be.

In my lifetime most of the Presidential elections have been a two horse race, one wearing red silks and one wearing blue silks, but both horses owned by the same corporate stable. It is only a race for the public. It makes little difference which horse wins as long as both are owned by the same stable. Trump won the qualifier as a longshot. Then he beat the other corporate horse. And now the Stable wants him put down. It doesn't get any simpler than that. How our public can remain so willfully dense is beyond comprehension to me.

And by the way in this year's field Biden is Deep State which is synonymous with Ike's military industrial complex, which is synonymous with Kennedy's Fed Backer. Why do you think Bernie has to go? Because Trump maybe beats him in every state but California and Vermont. But if he didn't Bernie isn't Deep State he's just plain communist. So we have all of the young candidates who hope to have a future being told to get out and their day will come and all of them have backed Biden. Why? Party bosses said so, you know, the ones with the PAC money.

All well said. The part in bold is why I'm an independent, and despise both parties, which I have certainly posted before.

Rs and Ds are two sides of the same coin. They just use different platform planks to stir up different parts of the electorate. Both parties only care about staying in power, keeping the status quo, and spending like crazy.

That's why the two party system has to die, for all the rest of us to survive.

And it's why it drives me nuts when peeps here swallow the talking points of either side, and fire back and forth at each other. The party bigwigs don't give a crap about anybody here. They just want to stir you up into voting for them to retain power. That's what Schumer was doing in front of the SCOTUS this week. Stirring up the masses so he can keep his job.

I was hoping for a Trump/Bernie standoff, b/c Trump's not a Pub and Bernie's not a Dem. One is a flaming narcissist, and the other is a freaking Marxist, but neither is a Deep Stater.

What separates them to me is that at least Trump has policies that help the economy and protect the 1A and 2A, and the border. Bernie's policies (if ever implemented, which would be impossible in my lifetime) would turn us into a third world country.

Which is only slightly worse than the Deep State of both sides. Which, btw, is the reason the Pubs couldn't muster enough votes to kill Obamacare, much less come up with something better. And the head Deep State Pub delivered the death blow finger to the effort.

And IF there were any loose ends in what he stated you just tied them together very nicely.

Back to the original thread topic. McConnell and the republicans have a solution--pull his committee assignments. Fill his position with someone who would vote for the subpoenas. Either put him on other committees or strip him altogether. The backlash might be bad, but the worst impact might be the loss of Utah's 6 electoral votes in 2020.

(03-07-2020 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Back to the original thread topic. McConnell and the republicans have a solution--pull his committee assignments. Fill his position with someone who would vote for the subpoenas. Either put him on other committees or strip him altogether. The backlash might be bad, but the worst impact might be the loss of Utah's 6 electoral votes in 2020.

while I agree with the solution, I'm not seeing the correlation/downside between one vs. the other....apparently, they're not happy with that slimy bastage either...

https://kutv.com/news/local/utah-bill-wo...s-senators

(03-07-2020 09:27 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Back to the original thread topic. McConnell and the republicans have a solution--pull his committee assignments. Fill his position with someone who would vote for the subpoenas. Either put him on other committees or strip him altogether. The backlash might be bad, but the worst impact might be the loss of Utah's 6 electoral votes in 2020.

Well if he has connections with Burisma, someone can promise to bring an ethics charge against him.

(03-07-2020 09:21 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  HW kept us from Michael Dukakis. And if not for conservatives like Perot and Buchanan, would have kept us from Clinton. W. kept us from Gore. Jeb was the anti-Pete Wilson. He helped turn Florida red. W., of course, completed the Republican takeover of Texas state govenrment.

If you think Bush was better for the country than Clinton...
you are what some accuse democrats on this board. Party over country

I think Clinton was better for the country than either Bush. In my lifetime, I would rank him second to Reagan.

GHWB was probably the most disappointing president to me. He had everything--intelligence, incredible experience, just should have been great for the job--but wasn't. Very nice man, and Barbara was an incredible woman. And the Berlin Wall fell to kick off his presidency. But somehow he just didn't figure out what to do once the old paradigm fell. And if anybody should have been able to, it was GHWB. But he just didn't.

It may be a surprise, but the president who did better than I expected was Obama. Turns out he was too much of an arrogant, narcissistic a-hole, and he had been lots of things but he had never actually DONE anything, so he didn't know how to work with people to get his socialist/communist agenda through. By being essentially incompetent, he turned out to be a lot better than I had thought. A really competent politician with Obama's agenda could have done the country a world of harm.

Jimmy Carter was the most disappointing to me. I voted for that idiot.

Although incredibly feckless he was probably one of the all around best human beings to inhabit the office. He was kinder and gentler before there was such a thing and it was what made him so ineffective.

I agree he is a great human being. But his inexperience in DC, his surrounding himself with the "IBM mafia" from Georgia and his whole defeatist life view (always limits) are what made him such a failure.

(03-06-2020 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 03:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  HW kept us from Michael Dukakis. And if not for conservatives like Perot and Buchanan, would have kept us from Clinton. W. kept us from Gore. Jeb was the anti-Pete Wilson. He helped turn Florida red. W., of course, completed the Republican takeover of Texas state govenrment.

If you think Bush was better for the country than Clinton...
you are what some accuse democrats on this board. Party over country

I think Clinton was better for the country than either Bush. In my lifetime, I would rank him second to Reagan.

GHWB was probably the most disappointing president to me. He had everything--intelligence, incredible experience, just should have been great for the job--but wasn't. Very nice man, and Barbara was an incredible woman. And the Berlin Wall fell to kick off his presidency. But somehow he just didn't figure out what to do once the old paradigm fell. And if anybody should have been able to, it was GHWB. But he just didn't.

It may be a surprise, but the president who did better than I expected was Obama. Turns out he was too much of an arrogant, narcissistic a-hole, and he had been lots of things but he had never actually DONE anything, so he didn't know how to work with people to get his socialist/communist agenda through. By being essentially incompetent, he turned out to be a lot better than I had thought. A really competent politician with Obama's agenda could have done the country a world of harm.

I think HW's biggest problem was DC fatigue for Republicans. A lot of the good people who had been with Reagan got tired of DC and left. He was left with a lot of people like today's Democrats who had lost touch with the country. He was also left with too many yes men.

One example was how during the recession, HW knew it had turned around. But there was still unemployment and the general public wasn't convinced it had turned around (unemployment took a huge drop in the figures announced just after the election). His handlers were still showing him fishing to prove he was tough. So the image was him fishing while America was unemployed. It made me furious with his handlers and I was a big fan.

There was just an irrational hostility towards him in 92. The fishing images contributed to that. Buchanan's nastiness contributed (he is my least favorite "Republican"). But I think a lot was a natural psychological reaction to the fall of the wall and the quick Gulf War. We had a "high" and had done all that. The world was a safer, better place. And then we couldn't fix (or seemingly couldn't) the economy.

(03-07-2020 10:40 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-07-2020 09:21 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 09:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-06-2020 08:23 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  If you think Bush was better for the country than Clinton...
you are what some accuse democrats on this board. Party over country

I think Clinton was better for the country than either Bush. In my lifetime, I would rank him second to Reagan.

GHWB was probably the most disappointing president to me. He had everything--intelligence, incredible experience, just should have been great for the job--but wasn't. Very nice man, and Barbara was an incredible woman. And the Berlin Wall fell to kick off his presidency. But somehow he just didn't figure out what to do once the old paradigm fell. And if anybody should have been able to, it was GHWB. But he just didn't.

It may be a surprise, but the president who did better than I expected was Obama. Turns out he was too much of an arrogant, narcissistic a-hole, and he had been lots of things but he had never actually DONE anything, so he didn't know how to work with people to get his socialist/communist agenda through. By being essentially incompetent, he turned out to be a lot better than I had thought. A really competent politician with Obama's agenda could have done the country a world of harm.

Jimmy Carter was the most disappointing to me. I voted for that idiot.

Although incredibly feckless he was probably one of the all around best human beings to inhabit the office. He was kinder and gentler before there was such a thing and it was what made him so ineffective.

I agree he is a great human being. But his inexperience in DC, his surrounding himself with the "IBM mafia" from Georgia and his whole defeatist life view (always limits) are what made him such a failure.

I think you're both basically saying the same thing as one leads to another...TB4E is spot-on with the crux...yours would be the end result....

I never thought I'd see another Carter until Zero got elected (fk'n twice!)....

you simply don't kowtow and bow to the world in sheepskin earnest and expect a positive result....when ya got 'em by the balls, you continue to squeeze.....you don't sell your soul to the devil via weakness or senseless wars that are meaningless...

they want what we have....fk that!

the USD is the global benchmark....before DJT, all the predecessors post Ike were merely reducing value and giving away the most important form of clout the U.S.A has developed in the past 250 yrs....