It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why do voters even consider Jeb Bush in 2016?

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:17 PM
link   
The Bush family made a very big payday in the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980's involving Jeb Bush, George Bush, Sr and Niel Bush.

Jeb Bush received a loan from Broward Federal Savings in the amount of $4.56 million for an office building that was appraised by regulators at $500,000 during the bailout which in all cost the taxpayers $1.4 trillion. This gave Jeb Bush a cool return of $4 million on his investment.

Niel Bush is another story. As director of Siverado Savings and Loan his company JNB defaulted on $3 million and Niel Bush also provided another $138 million in loans to a couple of his buddies Good and Walters, which they also defaulted on. I speculate this ended up in an offshore bank and was divided up later.

Bush, Sr. involvement superficialized the investigation and kept it all quite until his reelection in 1988.

Putting aside GW Bush's blank check to federal contractors during the Iraq reconstruction, which was clearly a conflict of interest involving members of his administration, why do people still support the Bush family and Jeb in particular?
edit on 8-4-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: eManym
The Bush family made a very big payday in the Savings and Loan scandal in the 1980's involving Jeb Bush, George Bush, Sr and Niel Bush.

Jeb Bush received a loan from Broward Federal Savings in the amount of $4.56 million for an office building that was appraised by regulators at $500,000 during the bailout which in all cost the taxpayers $1.4 trillion. This gave Jeb Bush a cool return of $4 million on his investment.

Niel Bush is another story. As director of Siverado Savings and Loan his company JNB defaulted on $3 million and Niel Bush also provided another $138 million in loans to a couple of his buddies Good and Walters, which they also defaulted on. I speculate this ended up in an offshore bank and was divided up later.

Bush, Sr. involvement superficialized the investigation and kept it all quite until his reelection in 1988.

Putting GW Bush's blank check to federal contractors during the Iraq reconstruction, which was clearly a conflict of interest involving members of his administration, why do people still support the Bush family and Jeb in particular?



Absolutely no idea. I have always wondered who the hell votes in these party primaries who support these Bush, McCain, Romney types. No conservatives or Republicans I know wants anything to do with the establishment candidates.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
People support the familiar and these elections go all out to push the psychological aspect of likeability towards people. Sadly people are misinformed and gullible, hopeful to a fault, and believe that this time things might be better.

Needless to say, there are actually some people that think the Bush's have had good presidencies. I shutter to think of these people.

Either way, the parties are the ones that control the votes whether there is a popular opinion or not. The public might absolutely hate their candidate but if they want them to win, they will politic their way through the voting system to see it happen. 2012 was a sad a ripe example of how it is done.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Jeb Bush.....It has a nice ring to it. I bet some people will vote for him just because he has a snazzy simple name. I bet people would vote for him because his name is easy to spell. I can think of quite a few reasons people would vote for someone that are not even related to competence. Good looks and a nice voice can get someone elected.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
Maybe because the Republicans haven't won the White House without either a Nixon or a Bush on the ticket in 87 years.

Desperate times call for desperate measures




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
I guess that when the other choices are Rand Paul or Ted Cruz then Jeb Bush would seem like a pretty damn good candidate



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: muse7
I guess that when the other choices are Rand Paul or Ted Cruz then Jeb Bush would seem like a pretty damn good candidate


This is where you are WRONG!!!!

No matter the other candidate, I would rather have bat-$hit-insane Ted Cruz!!! Another Bush is 100% out of the question in my eyes....I would vote for whoever, anyone else other than another Bush to destroy what is left of America!!!

GO AWAY BUSH FAMILY!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Good question, I hope they don't succeed in getting rid of Rand as easily as they did for his dad against Romney ...but I am a pessimist for a reason.
edit on 8-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
You want the simple answer?

Because Obama was so bad for the country.
It will take someone to face the arduous task of reversing the destruction.
Bush brings contacts with experience to the table. Presidents are only as good as the crowd they pick to be in their Administration. Instead of Muslim Brotherhood people, radicals as czars, failed presidential candidates running our Foreign affairs at the State Department, Bush will make a cabinet that will face world problems from experience, even though a lot of people won't agree with them ideologically.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Bush brings contacts with experience to the table. Presidents are only as good as the crowd they pick to be in their Administration.


Who would these people be, incumbents that know how to pull the correct strings for making money off the taxpayers?
edit on 8-4-2015 by eManym because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: eManym

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

Bush brings contacts with experience to the table. Presidents are only as good as the crowd they pick to be in their Administration.


He would these people be, incumbents that know how to pull the correct strings for making money off the taxpayers?


The exact opposite of Obama's inexperienced people.
Hardly any of Obama's people were ever qualified for their positions, they were picked for their politics or other ideological standings.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Why would they consider Hillary Clinton?
Why would they consider Bernie Sanders?

They've all got some sort of baggage that you or someone else disagrees with because, you know, you are so incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable about the state of the world. There isn't anyone out there that some group doesn't hate and that someone can dredge up some scandal, real or imagined, about them. The real question is why anyone thinks they are better at judging candidates than anyone else. The amount of ignorance amongst the populace exceeds the ignorance amongst the candidates. With an average IQ of 100, and by definition half below that, it's just a matter of who can concoct the most attractive fake imagery to get themselves elected.

Democracy sucks; you've got idiots for voters.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Yet you don't question hillary who's only credential was being bills wife...



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Why would they consider Hillary Clinton?
Why would they consider Bernie Sanders?

They've all got some sort of baggage that you or someone else disagrees with because, you know, you are so incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable about the state of the world. There isn't anyone out there that some group doesn't hate and that someone can dredge up some scandal, real or imagined, about them. The real question is why anyone thinks they are better at judging candidates than anyone else. The amount of ignorance amongst the populace exceeds the ignorance amongst the candidates. With an average IQ of 100, and by definition half below that, it's just a matter of who can concoct the most attractive fake imagery to get themselves elected.

Democracy sucks; you've got idiots for voters.


Are you advocating IQ tests in the womb and abort, that may satisfy your argument?
Careful for what you wish for.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I don't know anyone that backs Jeb Bush.
I also don't know anyone that will admit to backing Hillary Clinton.
I do know people that admit to voting for Obama the first time.... But I don't know a soul that will admit to voting for him the second time.
I think it is all manipulated BS.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Electronic voting machine saying Bush.. expect to see some misread votes.
Yep Push
edit on 8-4-2015 by dollukka because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
You want the simple answer?

Because Obama was so bad for the country.
It will take someone to face the arduous task of reversing the destruction.
Bush brings contacts with experience to the table. Presidents are only as good as the crowd they pick to be in their Administration. Instead of Muslim Brotherhood people, radicals as czars, failed presidential candidates running our Foreign affairs at the State Department, Bush will make a cabinet that will face world problems from experience, even though a lot of people won't agree with them ideologically.


Yeah, but.. how was Obama bad for the country? All economic indicators are up. All of them from unemployment to wall street, to everything.

He was also better globally as a president than either of the Bushes.

If you brush off the propganda Machine, your argument falls flat.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Yet you don't question hillary who's only credential was being bills wife...


Bill Clinton made some decisions that many feel had a drastic adverse effect on the economy, which is speculation. During Bill Clinton's term, the economy was doing very well. What Hillary Clinton has going for her is she is female and has a husband to help her in decision making. Many people are seeking change in the direction of the USA and are looking for novelty in the the electoral process.

IMO, this is why Hillary Clinton is being supported.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I'm 115 and I wouldn't try to run the US.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
You want the simple answer?

Because Obama was so bad for the country.
It will take someone to face the arduous task of reversing the destruction.
Bush brings contacts with experience to the table. Presidents are only as good as the crowd they pick to be in their Administration. Instead of Muslim Brotherhood people, radicals as czars, failed presidential candidates running our Foreign affairs at the State Department, Bush will make a cabinet that will face world problems from experience, even though a lot of people won't agree with them ideologically.


Yeah, but.. how was Obama bad for the country? All economic indicators are up. All of them from unemployment to wall street, to everything.

He was also better globally as a president than either of the Bushes.

If you brush off the propganda Machine, your argument falls flat.


The published economic indicators can't be correct. I know numerous people with years of experience and education in their field that have been out of work for years or working at mundane low paying part time service jobs. The US government is fudging the numbers to maintain investor satisfaction.




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join