Are Trump supporters Bush supporters?

Dupe

 

That nonsense has been blown out of the water a long time ago. Own up to your party’s racist, and corrupt past.

 

I rarely find you funny.

Bush and Cheney are war criminals

 

Please allow me.

I voted for both Bush41 and 43 in their first term, but not for either one in the 2nd term as their real colors came out. As far as Bush43, I knew six months before the shooting started that he was making excuses to take out Saddam. Yellow cake, mobile chem labs, etc. they all sounded phony to me and he fed the propaganda by always bringing up 911 in the same breath as Saddam. That led numerous people to believe Saddam was in some way involved with 911. And then his final excuse to go to war, that Saddam had WMD and we were in intimate danger of being attacked with them. Saddam had no delivery system that could have done so. Bush43 greatly expanded the police state with the patriot act which resulted in many excesses by government agencies and his having a government take over of airport security and creating the bloated DHS was completely unnecessary. Then there is the fact he was no conservative and here is a list of some of his programs.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2002

Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003

American Dream Down Payment Act of 2003

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Homeland Security Act of 2002

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2005

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008

Economic Stimulus Act of 2008

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008

Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008

Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008

 

The Party that Freed the Slaves no longer exists.

 

And the Republicans are controlled by people who in the time of the civil war would have been Democrats, and supported the Confederacy.

 

I voted for both Bush's twice. Any Republican of any faction is better than any Democrat that will run in the next thirty years. Or the last thirty years. Hell I even voted Romney and McCain though I didn't think either one of them would be much more than a competent place holders. I didn't vote for Trump until the choice was him or Hillary.

As for Obama, no better than the third or fourth worst president in American history.

As for Bush competent war leaders both of them. You got a war to win neocons and Bushes are the way to go. However someone else should be put in charge of running the peace process afterwards because they never met a peace process they couldn't screw up, in no small part because they just can't quite seem to understand average people, especially average people of different cultures.

My influences are history as it is not as I wish it to be or think it ought to be, logic, and the Austrian school of economics.

 

The GOP of today is the Fox news party. They cheersfor whoever Hannity tells them to cheer for. And they hate everyone Hannity tells them to hate.

Since Fox news cheered for both GWB and Trump, it is clear that GWB voters also voted for Trump.

 

Trump is not a Republican and doesn't have Republican values. That being said, I don't believe that Republicans support the last Bush president but liked his father. Cheney and Nixon are not in the favorite category either, in my view.

 

LOL, I would try to rewrite history too if I were the historic party of racism.

 

I'm not sure, both Bushes were much more moderate and less controversial than Trump. I think one of the reasons people vilify Cheney is that it was nearly impossible to dislike GW.

 

Its actually quite easy

 

I made no reference to "liking" or disliking anyone, of course.

You can be "disgusted" with a President of the United States for deploying United States troops within the United States in defense of the United States and its Constitution, and be "disgusted" with the United States troops he deployed within the United States in defense of the United States and its Constitution, and be "disgusted" with the people of the United States who elected him President of the United States and supported his deploying United States troops within the United States in defense of the United States and its Constitution.

That is your prerogative.

I'm amused at seeing all the fanatical enthusiasts for the Dub's bloody Iraq fiasco now turning hardcore Trumpery disciples and buying their messiah's fake claim that he had been against it.

 

Dub was duped by Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. and they befouled his presidency. They also screwed Rice and Powell.

Pappy Bush and Brent Scowcroft had tried to warn him, but he's a fairly dumb, albeit likable, guy.

 

I would say members of the party of the president defend and love their president regardless of whom it is. It more or less boils down to Republicans loving Republicans and Democrats loving Democrats. At least that is how I see it. Party loyalty. You're not going to talk a Trump supporter out of supporting him, you're not going to talk an Obama supporter out of supporting him. Nor a G.W. Bush supporter and on back. Call it partisan politics, especially today, partisanship is at an all time high when compared to the past.

I would say independents tend to view a president through that president's likability that partisan politics or political party loyalty. Most independents don't pay that much attention to the daily workings of government or get involved in much in politics. What they think of a president has more to do with a presidents personality, his persona, then his stances on issues or policies. Unless it is an extremely hot issue or one that effects them.

 

Hmm, I agree, most wouldn't have voted for Trump or backed him 10 years ago. At least I think not. Trump is a symptom or a result of our times. Quite a lot of the GOP base were very angry at the Republicans in congress for not stopping Obama cold, repealing the ACA, many other things. Never mind they didn't have the numbers to repeal anything. I think when the GOP took over the House, they expected the Republican House more or less to be the one who governs. To push their policies through, their legislation, to stop Obama and perhaps even get rid of him. With Reid tabling almost every passed Republican House bill, Reid made the GOP House ineffective. Then Obama bypassed the house with his pen and his phone, executive orders. It was like the GOP house didn't exist.

These angry Republicans were angry at their own congressional folks, angry at the GOP establishment, Trump was a fighter. Coarse sure, but he wouldn't take anything from anyone. Angry Republicans coalesced around him. I think one forgets that Trump was getting and winning the primaries with 35% of the GOP vote until the last couple to three primaries when Trump had cinched the nomination, then at shot up to 40%. That still leaves 60-65% of Republicans who wanted someone else. But they couldn't decide on who. It also true Trump supporters were the largest faction back then.

Trump is the symptom of total dissatisfaction with the current affairs of politics. Not only within the GOP, but remember, Trump also carried the independent vote. independents were also dissatisfied with business as usual in Washington, Trump supporters dissatisfied with the Republican Party and its leaders. Not enough fight in them. My take anyway.

 

Perhaps what is confusing you relates to supporters coming to the understanding that to face down the ideological offensive from the left, backed by the messaging domination from their MSM partners, a more aggressive candidate and attitude is required.

Republican candidates like Romney, or the sellout McCain, would rather allow the left to steamroll them, than fight fire with fire.

Perhaps followers of the New Democratic Party just aren't used to getting back what they've been dishing out.

 

That basically describes me.

 

The parties switched spots in the spectrum in the 1960's. The Northern democrats took control from the Southern Democrats (The racist branch of the party) and began supporting civil rights, while the Republican, led by Barry Goldwater, opposed civil rights in an attempt to steal the southern vote leading into the 1964 Presidential election. Many of the Southern Democrats left the party and became indepdents and a few key party figures, such as Strom Thurmond, switched over to the GOP outright.

The fact is that the southerners who opposed civil rights and would have been democrats during the civil war overwhelmingly vote Republican now, and they control the party. Why do you think Republicans are the only party that tends to have wet dreams about the confederacy winning the civil war?

 

You have a pretty weak argument, when you assign motives to people. Pure weak sauce.

 

First things first. Abe the outlaw went into combat over a fort that was hit by short range cannon.

Do you truly think it is smart to engage so many young men in combat over the fate of a fort?

This is why Democrat plead he did it for slavery. But he did not care at all about slavery. His thoughts are in writing and his aim was to remove them from this country.

But to engage in bloody combat over a strong fort? Anderson had no men injured. For the so called starting a war, the South sure was not effective. Even the Japs did a lot more damage than did Beauregard did to that fort.

No, Abe was in a snit. I called him a hot head. And not merely for engaging in VA in deadly combat, but for jailing thousands of Americans who did not agree with him. Well below half the voters voted for Abraham anyway. And if you think the hate against Trump over his winning the election vs Hillary is furious, check the fury at Abe who could not collect many votes.

Trump and Bush 43 both did far better in being elected than did Lincoln.

We know for a fact he gathered men to train for combat at Washington DC nd crossed a state border. At that time States were considered the prime players.

Democrats have so screwed up the system that today we put the boys in DC on top and shove our state legislators to a minor role. But even today our own states legislators matter more to the citizens than those bozos in DC matter.

Your shoddy history is not persuasive.

This country forced educators to teach a flawed version of the history of the war of independence. States leaving the union only left if the citizens so voted. The vote of the citizens comes number one to me.

A major flaw in the educators teaching is the Mississippi River. It had a lot of ports. And the South could market using those ports and ignore the ports of the upper north east. The North was scared out of their minds that they would lose major shipping. A lot of people wanted Spain to take charge of the Mississippi to keep those ports open.

You read posters bragging the north had the manufacturing. But note they never explain what was manufactured. I know textiles were made in the north but you must admit that textiles are not what most think of in manufacturing. So what did the North manufacture that was so vital to the health of the South?

 

Can you give me a link or something.

It's not just about racism.

 

Lincoln, as President of the United States, deployed United States troops, within the United Sates in defense of the United States, when an installation of the United States was attacked by individuals who rejected the Constitution of the United States that he was sworn, as President of the Untied States, to defend.

Whatever alternative, self-serving crackpot history you prefer is your business.

Trump's pretending that he was opposed to Bush's Iraq fiasco was endured by many former Dubya fans who are now Trump fanatics, apparently.

 

*Nobody switched. This is the bogus tale only told by Democrats. Strom Thurmond reformed is why he joined Republicans. But he is the only figure that did this. *Strom is the proof offered by Democrats yet they can't provide a list of Democrats who changed parties due to this and I have pressed them to give answers. They leave me with crickets chirping.

It can be argued that some Democrats actually started to support the republicans to get civil rights laws passed, but you can't claim the two parties switched.

Republicans had no motive to change from wanting civil rights to wanting them ended. This is the bogus tale told only by Democrats. Even the claims that Democrats in the North were in favor of blacks is a fairy tale. Some of course did support civil rights for blacks. But that is not what the 64 civil rights was all about. The civil rights laws were caused by what Democrats were doing. Republicans were not holding back blacks. We never have.

Also a fairy tale is that suddenly we absorbed the racist whites. We did no such thing. If they joined our party, the were not very solid racists at all. Democrats also mix up the Dixiecrats as if this matters. They were not happy with the way the other democrats ran things and for a short time gathered forces to do things different. But that had nothing to do with republicans.

Another tale is it was Goldwater's fault. A less racist man never lived. Goldwater actually was a constitutionalist. He believed as many republicans believe that states do have rights. Democrats preach states lost those rights. Back then Democrats preached states do have rights. That is the main issue, not that Goldwater voted the way he did.

What really switched is who believes in states rights. I believe that once the Democrats did believe in them. But today we republicans lead that parade.

Barry never had any issues with blacks. But he wanted to keep the Feds on track as to states rights. In that regard, Goldwater had joined Democrats in the fight for states rights.

Democrats in the north never cared one bit about states rights. Even today they do not care. They sell out their own states to back the Feds.

I am one of the few Republicans who argue that the war of independence of 1861-65 is incorrectly taught to our students. Other republicans of course join me but it does not mean my view or their view is the prevailing view of all republicans nor of most of them. A lot of republicans argue I am wrong.

I argue the war on a few quick points.
Abe was a winner of an election where he had a small support base. He did have more than his opponents but he had around 40 percent support is all.

Abe pissed off a lot of people at the time. The myth the north was eager to die in combat for Abe is a myth. They had massive resistance in the North to going to war.

I would be far more forgiving of Abe had he lost as few men in combat as say GW Bush lost in Iraq. Abe is the king of presidents as to lost men in combat.

He forced a war on the South. They had not invaded DC nor Maryland. All they did was ricochet cannon balls off the walls of a fort. We do not learn in school that no Americans were hurt in that fort. All we are taught is the South started the war. By hitting a forts walls? Give me a damned break. When the Alamo was taken, men got killed in combat. And yet what do you learn of history of that war event? Did any president mass troops to invade anybody?

 

More like he 70's when many republican northerners moved south for jobs. Barry Goldwater didn't oppose civil rights, he believed it was a state right. Almost none of the Southern Democrats left the party like Al Gores racist father.