First off, I hate answering posts like this, but I feel that it's the closest thing to a one-on-one discussion or debate.  Though I don't always agree with you, I respect your point of view.  My answers regarding your points are highlighted below.

 

 

Quote:I'll have to check that book out. It's hard to place anyone on the same level as Reagan; the man did save the economy and hasten the end of the Soviet Union, after all. Clinton's not too far off, though, especially when you consider that his only real late-20th century competition were Presidents who either dragged the country into or perpetuated a catastrophic war, proved themselves clueless in economic policy or got themselves impeached.

 

If you are unable to check the book out, I do have the Kindle edition that I would loan to you.  I encourage people to read, and have a pretty good library of books that I have been collecting.

 

As far as Clinton being close to "saving the economy", you have to remember that during his Presidency, the economy pretty much was on "auto pilot" and eventually led to the "dot-com bubble".  One other notable policy that he signed into law was welfare reform.  This was not done solely because he was The President, it was because the bills that went to his desk came from a republican congress.

 

I know you weren't comparing Sanders to Hitler philosophically, no worries there. As much as one side loves to demonize the other, comparing any modern US political figure in any branch of the federal government to Hitler isn't just stupid, it's an insult. I also have a few points that I agree with Sanders on, but he's so far to the left that I could never vote for him. Again, my highest hopes for him are that he drags votes away from Hillary and allows O'Malley to slide into the Democratic nomination. He's the only Democrat I'd consider voting for in the general election.

 

For the most part, I think that we are in agreement on this issue, though I would not really consider voting for O'Malley just yet.  The reason that I say that is that I don't know enough about him to consider him as a choice for my vote.  I kind of think more and more it's looking like Joe Biden might enter the race.  He would be the biggest threat to Hillary in my opinion.


 

Maybe I'm selling Jeb short here, but I think that if one wants to see a general outline of what his policies would look like, they'd need to look no further back than his brother's Presidency. Despite the general contempt for G. W. Bush among the left, I actually don't think he was that bad a President. He was leaps and bounds better than his father, that's for sure. The interesting thing to watch with G. W. Bush was how many of his decisions were actually his. When he was pushing policies written by Dick Cheney and delivering canned speeches prepared by Cheney's staff, he appeared almost robotic at times. When he was cut free from the teleprompter, he was actually a pretty dynamic guy to watch, grammatical errors notwithstanding. The six months following 9/11 were maybe the greatest display of leadership from an American President since FDR, and Bush felt like a completely different person than he did when he was under Cheney's thumb.

 

Here is where you and I disagree.  From what I know and have seen, Jeb is not the same as George.  I would say that one needs to look at Jeb's track record here in the State of Florida, rather than associate him with either his brother or his father.


 

As far as his brother, I think he did the job well during his first term as President, but he faltered during his second term.  I disagree that he was "under the thumb" of Dick Cheney, and speeches that he made were not "prepared by Cheney's staff".  I do think that he was overwhelmed during his first term when he had to deal with not only foreign policy (9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq), but also the economic bubble that had just burst (the dot-com bubble).  He was also faced with the next impending bubble that was far worse, that being the "housing-bubble" and the financial crisis that led to the bank bailouts.  His term was by no means "easy", and I do think that he did his best.


 

I hate to drag up the immigration thing with Rubio again, because it does get blown out of proportion (as all things political do), but I think he became an establishment politician when he changed his public sentiments on it. That struck me as little more than him realizing that his views didn't fit the party line, and if he wanted to advance, he'd have to reshape his image a bit.

 

I wouldn't call that becoming an "establishment politician", I would call that "coming to realize how things really get done" in Washington.  He was fighting not only the opposing party, but also his own party.  He is hardly someone that the establishment republicans back.

 

If you want to discuss our opinions regarding these issues, feel free to do so.

---