Currently Online 
| generic-user-1 said: bush started a war with lying to everybody, not obama. obama is more for dronekilling than for boots on the ground, not alot better but a bit. and clinton isnt like bush, she has other moneylines than the bushes, and an fullblown war isnt in the agenda for those shareholders. but wanting s winning over c doesnt mean that those people wouldnt vote for c if the alternative to c is assjuice, or vaginalultrasound, or some other lunatic. there is just bush or mitt as an option to have atleast a chance vs clinton. somebody like cruz cant win outside of the deep red states. and rand paul will never happen. like ron paul never happened they are to far away from the republican moneybase. |
Clinton is a neo-conservative/warhawk through and through. Just look at her voting record and comments on her position.
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Hillary_Clinton_Foreign_Policy.htm#Voting_Record
The internationalist outlook that served America and the world so well during the second half of the 20th century is under attack from both ends of the political spectrum. As the left has gravitated toward protectionism, many on the right have reverted to “America First” isolationism.
Our leaders should articulate a progressive internationalism based on the new realities of the Information Age: globalization, democracy, American pre-eminence, and the rise of a new array of threats ranging from regional and ethnic conflicts to the spread of missiles and biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. This approach recognizes the need to revamp, while continuing to rely on, multilateral alliances that advance U.S. values and interests.
- A clear national policy with bipartisan support that continues US global leadership, adjusts our alliances to new regional threats to peace and security, promotes the spread of political and economic freedom, and outlines where and how we are willing to use force.
- A modernized military equipped to deal with emerging threats to security, such as terrorism, information warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and destabilizing regional conflicts
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm
|
Hillary doesn't have the same cronies that Cheney had, but her cronies still want excessive military spending, drone bombings, and the U.S in the business of every single country in the world. She is a classic Wilsonian progressive, the predecessor to modern day Neo-conservatives (before the rise of Neo-Classical economics in U.S politics.)
Bush has no chance. The family name is too tainted, and Mitt won't run, nor would he win against Clinton if he were to run- they are too similar.
If you look at the Republican primary polls you notice that some candidates are more consistently high while others shoot up and down. That is the best indicator of who will win the primary. As for Rand Paul, he is much more political and persuasive than his father. He has a presence on Fox News whereas his father was shunned from Fox News, and that hurt his father's chances considerably. Rand Paul has also been reaching out to alternative money-bases than the typical backers of the establishment Republicans. Rand Paul is often in second or third in polls. While others come and go based on the news at the time.
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary
