
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is a "Bush Republican" to you?
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:21 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:21 am to Vacherie Saint
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:21 am to MSMHater
A Republican with lots of fluffy pubic hair?
But seriously...
Both Bushes were mixed bags.
Bush I tried to instill some fiscal responsibility by cutting spending and raising taxes, which is something that "conservatives" still don't understand. You can't just cut taxes if you care about the deficit/debt. You have to cut spending as well. (And someone please don't trot out the, "If you cut taxes it will increase tax revenue...it's happened every time it's been tried" nonsense...it's been debunked so many times it's tedious to have to do it again).
But then he expanded the ADA and regulatory burdens for businesses.
He appointed Clarence Thomas to the court, but also David Souter. One of the most staunchly conservative and also moonbat liberal justices.
Bush II tried to privatize SS, instituted supply-side tax cuts, but then created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the No Child left Behind nonsense. Appointed Alito and Roberts.
What's hilarious to me is that people here demonize the Bushes for their non-conservative actions while completely ignoring Trump's.
He's just as much of a mixed bag as either of those presidents were with his Bernie Sanders-style tariffs and his Nazi Party-style socialist investment into private businesses, buying off low-IQ voters with promises of $5,000 "stimulus" bribes, no taxes on tips, etc., etc. Appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barett. Again, all over the board.
I will say that both of the other two were much more mature and dignified in their roles than Trump. Which is probably why they get so much hate here.
But seriously...
Both Bushes were mixed bags.
Bush I tried to instill some fiscal responsibility by cutting spending and raising taxes, which is something that "conservatives" still don't understand. You can't just cut taxes if you care about the deficit/debt. You have to cut spending as well. (And someone please don't trot out the, "If you cut taxes it will increase tax revenue...it's happened every time it's been tried" nonsense...it's been debunked so many times it's tedious to have to do it again).
But then he expanded the ADA and regulatory burdens for businesses.
He appointed Clarence Thomas to the court, but also David Souter. One of the most staunchly conservative and also moonbat liberal justices.
Bush II tried to privatize SS, instituted supply-side tax cuts, but then created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the No Child left Behind nonsense. Appointed Alito and Roberts.
What's hilarious to me is that people here demonize the Bushes for their non-conservative actions while completely ignoring Trump's.
He's just as much of a mixed bag as either of those presidents were with his Bernie Sanders-style tariffs and his Nazi Party-style socialist investment into private businesses, buying off low-IQ voters with promises of $5,000 "stimulus" bribes, no taxes on tips, etc., etc. Appointed Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney-Barett. Again, all over the board.
I will say that both of the other two were much more mature and dignified in their roles than Trump. Which is probably why they get so much hate here.
This post was edited on 10/29/26 at 10:24 am
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:24 am to Napoleon
You can see in picture alone that Vance wasn’t ready for understanding. He’s since undergone a major change after seeing the outcomes
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:43 am to Napoleon
Did he have eyeliner back before monjauro? He sure buddied up to DJTJ as a hunting buddy like kevmac...Just sayin...
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:53 am to MSMHater
Never Trumpers who support open borders, endless wars abroad, and claim to be for fiscal restraint and small government but oppose any and all measures to reduce spending or investigate fraud. They tend to call themselves “compassionate conservatives”
Posted on 10/29/26 at 10:59 am to MSMHater
Bush Republicans? Several things. Kowtowing to more of a corporate-globalist business agenda, outsourcing our manufacturing base, and equally weak on border security and illegal immigration. Hence, zero interest in preserving American sovereignty, heritage, and culture. Related, never standing in the way of the left's full-bore barrage on the social-domestic agenda, apparently finding it unseemly to get into such lowly frays, and preferring 'decorum' with their good buddies across the aisle.
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for Bush-style Republicans. I despise it as much as I despise the commie left. MAGA might be a sloppy mess, and prone to dingbat conspiracy thinking, and even too big-government liberal for my tastes, but it's still overwhelmingly preferable to the cretinous Bush-Romney-McCain RINO Republicanism.
Which is why I have nothing but contempt for Bush-style Republicans. I despise it as much as I despise the commie left. MAGA might be a sloppy mess, and prone to dingbat conspiracy thinking, and even too big-government liberal for my tastes, but it's still overwhelmingly preferable to the cretinous Bush-Romney-McCain RINO Republicanism.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:01 am to MSMHater
Bush’s had a narrow view of how to run the greatest country on the planet. Quid pro quo.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:03 am to Napoleon
quote:
The people in 2016 who were dead set against Trump. Most cucked though.
How outrageous that someone might change their opinion between the time before Trump was in office to after seeing him in office for years.
That hardly ever happens that people learn from experience.
You think that is a good argument? How stupid are you?
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:12 am to MSMHater
A Bush Republican is a neocon.
Not a conservative at all.
Not a conservative at all.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:25 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
Based purely off prior Bush's in office, they're usually recognizable by some US involvement in a middle east conflict, rising gas prices, a recession, and a shitty trade agreement or two.
Nice cherry-picking and generalizations. You won't list the ways they are different because that will destroy your simple-minded narrative.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:27 am to Tmo Sabe
Great answers. Probably why this board is so fricked up. Republicans during the Bush terms won way more battles against the Dems than the Trump Republicans. You guys are a weird bunch.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:46 am to MSMHater
a bush republican is a country club republican. the rich peoples party. back in the day there was a conservative wing of the democratic party. blue collar workers with conservative views. the republicans back then were the bankers, business owners etc. george h w bush was the nafta guy. send the jobs overseas. he represented big business.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:50 am to RohanGonzales
Exactly. Just like some who voted for him now don't support him.
But the latter is unbelievable here.
But the latter is unbelievable here.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:54 am to MSMHater
Generally, someone representative of Reagan era “Movement Conservatism”. The elite coalition that includes all the groups that had problems with the New Deal to Great Society liberal coalition that governed America basically unopposed after the end of World War II. The coalition included business leaders, libertarians, neocons, tories, segregationists, moral majority Christians, the prolife movement, nationalists, and conservative populists.
Since Reagan, the latter half were always junior partners in the relationship, at least at the national level. In practice this meant that there was a lot of posturing around issues like abortion, crime, or immigration for election purposes, but then actual governance was about increasing the role of the free market. This meant not only cuts in taxes and regulations, but a belief in the free movement of goods, services, and people across borders to lower prices and increase economic efficiency. This created a divide within the movement between people like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan who wanted to return things to the past, or at least halt the present; and the people in charge who were busy unleashing the market as an engine of change.
To the extent that Bush Republican is unique from that is after 9/11 the neocons rose to the top of the coalition. The neocons basically had a capitalist variation on Trotskyite socialism. Instead of trying to push the international dictatorship of the proletariat, they want American ideas of human rights, transparency, and democracy to be the law of the land throughout the world. The last two decades have really been bad for neocons. While they had the height of their power, China emerged as an undemocratic global power, Russia, Turkey, and Brazil are all regional powers that backslid away from democracy. The “Arab Spring” replaced depots and oligarchs, with fundamentalist Muslims. And most viscerally, Iraq and Afghanistan ended as failures.
Enter Trump, who broke the conservative coalition in favor of the national populists and protections and who is far more supportive of the Christian right, and the white indentity voters and groups than any previous Republican administration would ever have been. All the other groups have either left the Republican Party or bent the knee.
So in short, when someone says Bush Republican, they generally mean a Republican of influence from the pre-Trump era, that is no longer a Republican, or a never Trump Republican, and who beliefs are either in the free market alone, or who has a childish and naive belief in the rule of law, precedent, and an elitist Tory disposition towards the status quo. Ie: it doesn’t matter if you hate the New Deal, we’ve lived under it for 80 years, and so we undue it at our peril. They also mean someone who is post-racial in their race ideas.
Since Reagan, the latter half were always junior partners in the relationship, at least at the national level. In practice this meant that there was a lot of posturing around issues like abortion, crime, or immigration for election purposes, but then actual governance was about increasing the role of the free market. This meant not only cuts in taxes and regulations, but a belief in the free movement of goods, services, and people across borders to lower prices and increase economic efficiency. This created a divide within the movement between people like Sam Francis and Pat Buchanan who wanted to return things to the past, or at least halt the present; and the people in charge who were busy unleashing the market as an engine of change.
To the extent that Bush Republican is unique from that is after 9/11 the neocons rose to the top of the coalition. The neocons basically had a capitalist variation on Trotskyite socialism. Instead of trying to push the international dictatorship of the proletariat, they want American ideas of human rights, transparency, and democracy to be the law of the land throughout the world. The last two decades have really been bad for neocons. While they had the height of their power, China emerged as an undemocratic global power, Russia, Turkey, and Brazil are all regional powers that backslid away from democracy. The “Arab Spring” replaced depots and oligarchs, with fundamentalist Muslims. And most viscerally, Iraq and Afghanistan ended as failures.
Enter Trump, who broke the conservative coalition in favor of the national populists and protections and who is far more supportive of the Christian right, and the white indentity voters and groups than any previous Republican administration would ever have been. All the other groups have either left the Republican Party or bent the knee.
So in short, when someone says Bush Republican, they generally mean a Republican of influence from the pre-Trump era, that is no longer a Republican, or a never Trump Republican, and who beliefs are either in the free market alone, or who has a childish and naive belief in the rule of law, precedent, and an elitist Tory disposition towards the status quo. Ie: it doesn’t matter if you hate the New Deal, we’ve lived under it for 80 years, and so we undue it at our peril. They also mean someone who is post-racial in their race ideas.
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:55 am to MSMHater
It’s what we had at the time that kept Dukakis and Gore and other Dems out of the WH at the time.
You’re welcome
You’re welcome
Posted on 10/29/26 at 11:56 am to MSMHater
AWATALAD for the most part

Popular
Back to top


0












