Sanders Pulls Nearly Even With Clinton in New Poll

[columbus]

Republican candidates keep telling me Iran released its prisoners the day Reagan stepped into office. I don't know how true that is though.

Very true.
The Iranians held them until Carter lost the election. They considered him the Great Satan. They did not realize that the Great Satan was really George Bush, until he had launched a proxy war against Iran.
By then it was too late.
Oops.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Very true.
The Iranians held them until Carter lost the election. They considered him the Great Satan. They did not realize that the Great Satan was really George Bush, until he had launched a proxy war against Iran.
By then it was too late.
Oops.
Tom

Much as I like Reagan, he was the one (not Bush) who really did the deed against Iran.
This was by supplying Iraq with WMD precursors & other aid in their attack on Iran,
ultimately killing over a million Iranians. Dubya was at most Reagan-lite.

 

[columbus]

Much as I like Reagan, he was the one (not Bush) who really did the deed against Iran.

Why do you believe this?
Did he ever take responsibility for the decision?
Terms like "Teflon president" and "plausible deniability" were coined specifically to describe Reagan's ability to not know what his government was doing.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do you believe this?
Did he ever take responsibility for the decision?
Terms like "Teflon president" and "plausible deniability" were coined specifically to describe Reagan's ability to not know what his government was doing.
Tom

The military aid to Iraq in their attack on Iran (1980-88)happened during his reign (1981-89).
Such support would require his approval.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

 

[columbus]

This was by supplying Iraq with WMD precursors & other aid in their attack on Iran,
ultimately killing over a million Iranians.

And who did that? Reagan or the CIA?
Bush was the big wig of the CIA when the USA launched the covert war against Iran. Reagan was just a figurehead. He did not even know about the Iran/Contra plan.
But Bush managed to protect Ollie North so effectively that instead of being executed for treason North ran for the Senate.
Not that Reagan knew anything about that, of course.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

And who did that? Reagan or the CIA?
Bush was the big wig of the CIA when the USA launched the covert war against Iran. Reagan was just a figurehead. He did not even know about the Iran/Contra plan.
But Bush managed to protect Ollie North so effectively that instead of being executed for treason North ran for the Senate.
Not that Reagan knew anything about that, of course.
Tom

Two things point to Reagan being the cause.....
- He stated that it was important for Iraq to win.
- He had the authority over such major foreign adventures.
I'd expect that he'd bring the resources of government to bear on what he saw as a critical goal.
And it doesn't seem possible that something on this scale would happen without his approval.

 

[columbus]

Dubya was at most Reagan-lite.

Dubya is an incompentent Bush. His dad sent him to finish the war he started. And Dubya lost it, along with the USA economy and stuff.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Dubya is an incompentent Bush. His dad sent him to finish the war he started. And Dubya lost it, along with the USA economy and stuff.
Tom

I don't think he was any more incompetent than other presidents of the era.
How do we know his father made him pursue the war?
It was indeed very damaging to the economy, but I blame more than just GW.
I blame all who voted for starting & continuing it.

 

[columbus]

Two things point to Reagan being the cause.....
- He stated that it was important for Iraq to win.

Point a camera at Reagan and he will say whatever the director tells him to say.
Especially if he feels like a nap.
Tom

 

[esmith]

What I see is that "hindsight" is 100% accurate. Enough said.

 

[columbus]

I don't think he was any more incompetent than other presidents of the era.

Well, take a look at the "State of the Union" when Clinton took office and when he left. Compare it to when Bush took office and when he left.(BushII) Then compare when Obama took office and the projections for the end of this year.
And you will see why I think it important to have a Democratic president.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Point a camera at Reagan and he will say whatever the director tells him to say.
Especially if he feels like a nap.
Tom

I don't buy the old media stereotype.
I've read enuf about his administration to know that he was a strong leader.
And unlike Obama, he didn't need teleprompters to know what to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, take a look at the "State of the Union" when Clinton took office and when he left. Compare it to when Bush took office and when he left.(BushII) Then compare when Obama took office and the projections for the end of this year.
And you will see why I think it important to have a Democratic president.
Tom

This would be a highly incomplete way to evaluate a president.
For one thing, the intelligence community was gutted under Clinton.
The towers fell only shortly after Bush assumed office, so the phase
lag of security lapses extended to the prior admin.
And Obama has horribly mishandled what authority he has regarding
our economy. But he also avoided the strong push to attack Iran.
He, like Bush, has mixed results. But even they aren't fully culpable
for the economic malaise, which has causes with bi-partisan roots
over many decades. There's a whole lotta incompetence to go around.

 

[esmith]

So, if Bloomberg comes into the race (see post " Democrats Getting Worried?) will that affect Bernie or Hillary or even both of them?

 

[LuisDantas]

Or maybe it will take votes mostly from the Republicans?

 

[Revoltingest]

Or maybe it will take votes mostly from the Republicans?

Since he swung both ways in the past, it would be hard to predict.

 

[LuisDantas]

That is one factor to consider. Another is that except perhaps for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump neither party seems to be presenting candidates that make people all that enthusiastic.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn that most of the people who do not want to vote for Democrats would prefer Bloomberg over any of the Republicans, perhaps including Trump.

 

[esmith]

Or maybe it will take votes mostly from the Republicans?

Nah, Bloomberg is a hard-core anti-gun zealot. This alone disqualifies him from receiving any votes from Republicans.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

From what I've read Bloomberg will be nicking more votes from the Democrats. Bloomberg running for President is one of the few ways the Republicans could actually win this year, if they're up against Hillary. (EDIT: If Bloomberg runs as an independent that is)

 

[LuisDantas]

Nah, Bloomberg is a hard-core anti-gun zealot. This alone disqualifies him from receiving any votes from Republicans.

Oh, right. Although who knows... politics may be surprising.