Party like it's 1998

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Apr 28, 2016.

  1. 63dot macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    ...or go international in next presidential term and expand US military interests?

    I was just listening to CNN and it's weird how we can have another Clinton in the White House and the GOP starts talking about the democrats being the "hawks" again and Donald Trump now talking about peaceful isolationist policies with monies spent here improving the economy. Trump claims wants to bring about a long peace and resurgence of a Reagan type of economic boom that will make everybody happy.

    The last time the republicans tried to paint the democrats as promoting unnecessary wars back in 1998, they got some traction with Gingrich's republican Congress. It's very hypocritical being that the two Gulf Wars (Kuwait, then invasion of Iraq) were initially republican initiated actions that the democrats got stuck with.

    Are the Clintons warmongers like he's trying to now maintain? (at least this week). And what is this whole switch on Fox and the GOP trying to make Hilary's likely protracted war unpopular when she hasn't even taken the White House yet and increased our presence in Iraq as if the democrats started it in the first place? The GOP has really lost all credibility when it comes to foreign policy.

    Now that ISIS is scaled back by Russia, and has been largely out of the news, the republicans claim it's not really our problem anymore. Six months ago it was all about ISIS and immigration and now the republicans are working the Trump angle of making us great again and claiming they never said the things they did to initially get noticed. Trump changes weekly but he doesn't look way out of place since the GOP who hates him is no more steady in their priorities.
  2. ActionableMango macrumors G3


    Sep 21, 2010
    We have no idea what Trump will do. Good or bad, left or right, we have no idea.

    The best predictor of what a politician will do is the past record of what that politician has done. Since Trump hasn't held office before, there is no voting record.

    The worst possible prediction of what Trump would do as president is to listen to what he says. The three big problems with this are (1) politicians running for office say anything, but then do completely different things, (2) Trump in particular has changed his mind or said conflicting things so many times that there's no way to make sense of it anyway, and (3) Trump himself has said you can't go by what he's said or done in the past, because he's said or done whatever he's needed to in order to gain favor for his business efforts.
  3. Meister Suspended


    Oct 10, 2013
    Trump is a wild card.

    But we know what his opponent has done.

    So Trump is the only option.

    Vote Trump or stay home.
  4. rigormortis macrumors 68000


    Jun 11, 2009
    with mcmahon donating money to trump
    he will probably keep doctors out of wrestling events and remove the rubber pads on the floor to protect wresters being tossed over the top rope

    we might even go back to the mid 90s when wrestlers did not move the monitors and iPads off the announce tables prior to doing a stunt
  5. thewap macrumors demi-god


    Jun 19, 2012
    It is an easy choice. The duopoly of the right/left paradigm has been busted by Trump. Both parties are trying to stop Trump the outsider. Both parties push empirical wars and global domination for special interest and Big Corps / banks /Goldman Sachs, Trump is for the people.
  6. maxsix Suspended


    Jun 28, 2015
    Western Hemisphere
    If Donald doesn't get elected to be the President, it'll be proof positive that he is unable to tell lies as well as Hillary does.

    Besides he doesn't have the street cred. Hillary is admired by gangsters and other career criminals all over the world.
  7. Renzatic Suspended


    Aug 3, 2011
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    Elsewhere, I called Trump the ultimate Projection Candidate. If you want to be honest about it, he's vague enough about everything that you can say none of us know exactly what he stands for. It's because of this that we're all able to project everything we like or hate about the guy onto him.

    Want a good example of this? Let's take that "doctors should be punished for illegal abortions" quip he made a little while back. That's kind of a tautology, isn't it? Illegal abortions are illegal, that's why we call them illegal abortions, and no doctor can get away with performing one without having some damn good medical reason for doing so. He's stating the obvious here.

    If you're pro-choice, you'll see that statement as an attack against the institution of abortion, and rail against him for it. Pro-life will see it as the same thing,and rally behind him for it.

    ...but it doesn't actually mean anything.
  8. thermodynamic, May 1, 2016
    Last edited: May 1, 2016

    thermodynamic Suspended


    May 3, 2009
    Is this the same Reagan that increased taxes on the working class a almost a dozen times, tripled the national debt, caused severe unemployment, had the Lebanon crisis and other similar ones, handed out more in corporate welfare, was the first to give China MFN status (you know, the same status you lot complain about Bill Clinton doing), giving amnesty to illegals since he put them well above and over American citizens, raised the debt ceiling 18 times, deregulating so much, creating the Taliban (that photo with Saddam with Reagan's rep Rumsfeld should take you back), illegally sold weapons to his besties in Iran (Iran-Contra, anyone?), helped create the 1987 crash, grew the size of government disproportionately, installed an economic policy his own VP lambasted as "voodoo economics", almost caused global nuclear annihilation in 1983, and on and on and on? (Look it up, this stuff isn't esoteric, shrouded, Snowden-worthy, requiring a 3rd degree initiation, or anything else, it's all been readily available for decades.)

    Yeah, people were happy because they didn't know it at the time...

    Or now, it seems.

    But as we all know, history is just one of those unprofitable liberal libbie college courses - like basket weavin'...

    Forgive us for laughing, at Reagan's followers that pretend real life didn't exist while preaching a pitiful myth, thank you.
    --- Post Merged, May 1, 2016 ---
    One thing he has been consistent on was pointing out Bush lies about going into Iraq. But that's not hard-to-find knowledge, Bush himself stammered on television saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs but apparently had the capacity to make them (which is a big difference compared to the "imminent strike" that Bush led everyone to believe, before changing his tune with the b.s. about liberating the people...)

    In case people forgot:


    It's amazing how much Cheney was able to predict 9 years before the fact. Which might be why Bush hid the war costs?
  9. ActionableMango macrumors G3


    Sep 21, 2010
    That's quite an awkward segue going from my post about "we don't know Trump" to complaining about Bush and Iraq, with prepared links and videos and the like. Perhaps you should just start a new thread.
  10. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    I think history will be on the side of the democrats especially since Reagan got in on trying to reduce spending but actually outspent Carter and W got us into invading Iraq on false pretenses. Hindsight is 20/20.

    But at the time, the GOP knew how to milk it for all it's worth and got five presidential terms out of it with Reagan and the Bushes. I think part of the reason that Jeb didn't do well in this current primary season is because America has an overall bad feeling about those five republican terms and see it as one big monolithic, lying, GOP machine.

    The likes of Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford will look better in history a hundred years from now than Reagan and all the Bushes.

Share This Page