First
Lifer
- Jun 3, 2002
- 10,518
- 271
- 136
Again Benghazi isn't going to be about Benghazi, it's going to be about her emotionality and apparent inability to stay cool under pressure.
Again Benghazi isn't going to be about Benghazi, it's going to be about her emotionality and apparent inability to stay cool under pressure.
up for grabs
Those links say Jeb is slightly more dishonest than Hillary.Like I said:
IMO Hillary is a much more dishonest person than Jeb ever was.
This isn't about George Bush it is about Jeb...
Again Benghazi isn't going to be about Benghazi, it's going to be about her emotionality and apparent inability to stay cool under pressure.
When you have nearly all the same mentors/advisors as George, it's about George as much as it is about Jeb.
When you have nearly all the same mentors/advisors as George, it's about George as much as it is about Jeb.
Those links say Jeb is slightly more dishonest than Hillary.
When you have nearly all the same mentors/advisors as George, it's about George as much as it is about Jeb.
You are wrong. That is your opinion.
And that, is your opinion.
Nope, it is a fact. Hell, one of his foreign policy advisers is George W. Bush himself.You are wrong. That is your opinion.
I am sure you assume the errors all go in your favor as well like a good little conservative.Well within the error range I am sure.
I think it is going to be a lot closer than you Libs think.
"Colorado has led the effort toward legalizing marijuana and I'm going to watch very closely to see the pluses and minuses of what they have done," Sanders wrote on Reddit. "I will have more to say about this issue within the coming months."
Those links say Jeb is slightly more dishonest than Hillary.
Were people this frothy about a "Bush Dynasty" back when Dubya was first running for President?I'm all atwitter.... we get Jeb/Hillary this time around. Next up will be Chelsea/some random Bush kid. Are we ever going to get off this merry-go-round? We are already have had more than a quarter century of these two families, are we going for a half-century? a century?
Were people this frothy about a "Bush Dynasty" back when Dubya was first running for President?
Maybe, but as Romney found out there are a lot more young and minority voters now, not to mention a lot more Americans on assistance. And where previously conservatives could rely on young people maturing, that doesn't make their social views more conservative, and the Pubbies' social views are way out of line with mainstream America. I suspect the reason we have so many contenders is this history, and probably Hillary as the opponent, but I think the Pubbies are in for a rude surprise if they are relying on the pendulum effect of the past.I agree it could be, actually going by history Republicans should win. But as we've seen in the past, all it takes is some slip-up (remember 47%?) and they lose. Trump's Mexican tirades could sway Jeb's feeble attempt of speaking in Spanish (as his brother did) to secure the latino vote.
Wow, how brave of a politician to promise to closely watch a controversial issue.Bernie Sanders grabs the flag on a resonant issue-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/19/bernie-sanders-marijuana_n_7337454.html
Dirty rotten socialist bastard!
Hillary can chime right in, of course, leaving the Repub field sucking hind tit or no tit at all...
No, but Bush himself caused some of it; he would never have come close without his family name. For the rest, Hillary is a particularly dislikeable example, and while Jeb may be an affable oaf or even a smart guy with the Bush children's verbal dyslexia, he is the third. There were heroic efforts to move Teddy into the White House and they came to naught, and people liked JFK and RFK a hell of a lot more than either Bush. Barbara might be the exception but surely a lot of that was her being apolitical. It's just easier to like people not trying to get power.Were people this frothy about a "Bush Dynasty" back when Dubya was first running for President?
