2016 Presidental canidates

[San-Silvacian]

Somebody smart 2016

lol impossible. that is a fallacy and a dream. we'd have to dig up somebody from 80+ years ago and that would be a select crowd and they would most likely 'wtf' and leave.

Also,

Zombie Reagan 2016.

[Resora]

Zombie Reagan 2016.

Didn't have enough War-Criminal-In-Chief with W and Reagan's first two terms?

[Wamitoria]

Somebody smart 2016

Tyson/Hawking 2016?

[San-Silvacian]

Zombie Reagan 2016.

Didn't have enough War-Criminal-In-Chief with W and Reagan's first two terms?

That was Ronald Reagan.

Zombie Reagan is just the reanimated corpse of Reagan. Two totally different things. Its like calling the Syrians anti-Semitic for using Panzer IVs against the Israelis during the Six-Day War.

[Mike the Progressive]

Zombie Reagan 2016.

Didn't have enough War-Criminal-In-Chief with W and Reagan's first two terms?

By that standard, every president since Washington has been a war criminal in one way or another.

[Resora]

Didn't have enough War-Criminal-In-Chief with W and Reagan's first two terms?

By that standard, every president since Washington has been a war criminal in one way or another.

And which standard would that be?

[Llamalandia]

Zombie Reagan 2016.

Didn't have enough War-Criminal-In-Chief with W and Reagan's first two terms?

Really so now reagan is a war criminal now wtf? also bush was an idiot not a war criminal, as war crimes if I'm not mistaken require intent and knowledge between right and wrong I'm not sure W qualifies on either count.

[Llamalandia]

Somebody smart 2016

Tyson/Hawking 2016?

Hey as long as they're freemarketeers i'm down with that where can I find the bumper stickers

[Mike the Progressive]

By that standard, every president since Washington has been a war criminal in one way or another.

And which standard would that be?

If Bush and Reagan are war criminals, every president is a war criminal.

[Resora]

And which standard would that be?

If Bush and Reagan are war criminals, every president is a war criminal.

Are you seriously claiming Bush and Reagan's foreign policy was no different from, say, Jimmy Carter or FDR?

[Mike the Progressive]

If Bush and Reagan are war criminals, every president is a war criminal.

Are you seriously claiming Bush and Reagan's foreign policy was no different from, say, Jimmy Carter or FDR?

Are you serious naive enough to not assume FDR OK'ed the firebombing of parts of Europe and Japan that killed thousands of innocent civilians is warcrime? That Carter was more hawkish than people think?

[The Steel Magnolia]

Warren is a solid pick for 2016. The USA could use a solid progressive candidate instead of this moderate kowtowing to the financial industry but paying lip service to the left Obama bullshit.

Warren is completely unelectable, so A+++ job consigning the country to a republican presidency!

[Resora]

Are you seriously claiming Bush and Reagan's foreign policy was no different from, say, Jimmy Carter or FDR?

Are you serious naive enough to not assume FDR OK'ed the firebombing of parts of Europe and Japan that killed thousands of innocent civilians is warcrime? That Carter was more hawkish than people think?

I don't support many of the atrocities that the Allies perpetuated in WWII, but comparing total war against a genuinely evil regime with a war of corporate aggrandizement sold through lies and deception is deceptive and you know it.

[Resora]

Warren is a solid pick for 2016. The USA could use a solid progressive candidate instead of this moderate kowtowing to the financial industry but paying lip service to the left Obama bullshit.

Warren is completely unelectable

Nope. If she digs into the banks, she'll not only galvanize the growing Democratic vote, she'll swing moderate Republicans.

[Mike the Progressive]

Are you serious naive enough to not assume FDR OK'ed the firebombing of parts of Europe and Japan that killed thousands of innocent civilians is warcrime? That Carter was more hawkish than people think?

I don't support many of the atrocities that the Allies perpetuated in WWII, but comparing total war against a genuinely evil regime with a war of corporate aggrandizement sold through lies and deception is deceptive and you know it.

It's not. At the end of the day, a war crime is a war crime. Also, you could argue WW2 was motivated by economic interests of the US.

[Mike the Progressive]

Warren is completely unelectable

Nope. If she digs into the banks, she'll not only galvanize the growing Democratic vote, she'll swing moderate Republicans.

No, she won't. She won't win the nomination, never mind the election.

[Zocra]

...impossible....maximum amount of years a president can serve is 10 years (two terms and 2 years─set aside for a vice president finishing role like L.B. Johnson)

Ah, but "Barrack Obama" has never been President.

Dang...good eye, i didn't even notice that...

[Resora]

Nope. If she digs into the banks, she'll not only galvanize the growing Democratic vote, she'll swing moderate Republicans.

No, she won't. She won't win the nomination, never mind the election.

America isn't as conservative as people seem to think. She'd do quite well against someone like Rubio, who has made enough questionable decisions in Congress (opposing VAWA being a prominent example) to weigh him down with baggage. She'll have to move towards the center, but every candidate does that.

It's not. At the end of the day, a war crime is a war crime. Also, you could argue WW2 was motivated by economic interests of the US.

Only if you claim we allowed Pearl Harbor.

[Mike the Progressive]

No, she won't. She won't win the nomination, never mind the election.

America isn't as conservative as people seem to think. She'd do quite well against someone like Rubio, who has made enough questionable decisions in Congress (opposing VAWA being a prominent example) to weigh him down with baggage. She'll have to move towards the center, but every candidate does that.

Good, I'm glad you understand that to govern you have to do so from the center. I don't think the nation is as conservative as many think either, but it's conservative about some things and liberal about other things. Warren, while I like her going after the banks, is not the strongest nominee to win. There's no reason why the Democrats can't win 2016, especially with somebody as strong as Clinton.

It's not. At the end of the day, a war crime is a war crime. Also, you could argue WW2 was motivated by economic interests of the US.

Only if you claim we allowed Pearl Harbor.

We armed Germany and Japan's allies, we gave them (Britain, Russia) loans we expected to be paid back, and we stopped selling steel and oil to Japan a few years earlier.

Who really started the hostilities?

If you sincerely think in one instance foreign policy is driven by economic motives and in another, it's not, you're a fool. Economics, as well as strategic and political concerns always plays a role in any foreign policy action. It's not just one or the other.

[Resora]

If you sincerely think in one instance foreign policy is driven by economic motives and in another, it's not, you're a fool. Economics, as well as strategic and political concerns always plays a role in any foreign policy action. It's not just one or the other.

I don't believe I claimed otherwise.

[Mike the Progressive]

If you sincerely think in one instance foreign policy is driven by economic motives and in another, it's not, you're a fool. Economics, as well as strategic and political concerns always plays a role in any foreign policy action. It's not just one or the other.

I don't believe I claimed otherwise.

You did when you excused FDR for not being a war criminal (and every president between and before), but charged Reagan and Bush.

[San-Silvacian]

If anything the period from 1776-1900 was pretty war crime-y in US history.

1901 and onward was just icing on the cake.

[Resora]

I don't believe I claimed otherwise.

You did when you excused FDR for not being a war criminal (and every president between and before), but charged Reagan and Bush.

And here we go again -- to imply there is negligible difference between the Iraq War and WWII is like claiming there was no difference between the French Revolution and the French Wars of Religion.

[Mike the Progressive]

You did when you excused FDR for not being a war criminal (and every president between and before), but charged Reagan and Bush.

And here we go again -- to imply there is negligible difference between the Iraq War and WWII is like claiming there was no difference between the French Revolution and the French Wars of Religion.

Of course not, they are very different, though one can argue they both had dictators who committed genocide and acted as bullies in their sphere of influence.

But how just the cause may be does not diminish the fact that "war crimes" were committed. You say because WW2 was a "just" war, that the death of Japanese and German civilians was acceptable to a degree where FDR would not be considered a war criminal. To which I say bullshit.

[Resora]

And here we go again -- to imply there is negligible difference between the Iraq War and WWII is like claiming there was no difference between the French Revolution and the French Wars of Religion.

Of course not, they are very different, though one can argue they both had dictators who committed genocide and acted as bullies in their sphere of influence.

But how just the cause may be does not diminish the fact that "war crimes" were committed. You say because WW2 was a "just" war, that the death of Japanese and German civilians was acceptable to a degree where FDR would not be considered a war criminal. To which I say bullshit.

Actually, all I was doing is pointing out the difference in degree of evil. FDR had a lot of blood on his hands, nobody is going to deny that, but Bush he ain't.