And now a lot of people are bragging they were against the war. Why was Bernie the only one to speak out against the wars and deal with the backlash?

And if I'm wrong, I will change this position.

What I don't quite understand is why all the new hypothetical war tough talk. I don't know who to trust in a tight situation. It just seems like it's an inconsistent personality trait. I think it's just pandering for votes from hawks, doves and vets.

OK we will humor you and pretend it was a cooked package.

What does that say about our lofty congressional members that would have apparently done no homework on what was presented (as usual) and just went along with the president because they liked him.....including Clinton.

BS!

Obama approval since inauguration. Compare that with GWBush's ski slope ride into the low 30's. Or compare to Bill Clinton's ratings. By the way, Gallup has asked the same question all through the years "Do you approve or disapprove of the way (.) is handling his job a President"

Would you find it helpful to see graphs of the job losses under Bush vs under Obama or are kid graphs too complicated for you? Hint.. private sector jobs created under Bush -462,000 Under Obama +9,517,000 thru Nov 2015
Read all about it https://ourfuture.org/20141208/bush-...-simple-charts

Bush had no unemployment according to economists, UNTIL the last two years of his term, which had a democrat controlled congress. There are still more folks, NOT working and not seeking employment than when Bush was in charge. So, argue all you wish, but the thread is about Trump. So, get over it, not everything in the past seven years is Bush's fault and isn't it time for you liberals to grow up and take some responsibility? You elected a FAILURE for your experimental president. Don't blame Bush for Obama.

Actually a lot of Democrats voted against the approval of the invasion of Iraq in 2002. In the House the pro/con vote was GOP 215/6 and Dem 82/126. Thus in the House more Dems voted against the war by a large margin. Bernie was in the House in 2002 as an Independent and voted against the war joining the 126 Democrats. In the Senate it was GOP 48/1 and Dems 29/21, plus one no from independent Jeffords-VT.

So it is inaccurate to say that Bernie was alone opposing the invasion. Most of the no votes from Democrats centered on the issue that we should allow the UN inspectors more time to verify or refute the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and as per the presentation of the President, a nuclear attack was around the corner. (or Nucular)
Attempts to amend the resolution to only give authorization for that mission were defeated.

you are correct
What I meant to say was that Bernie is the only one running for office that was against the wars.
Is that wrong too?

I have no desire to argue the failures of GWB vs Obama. I simply am responding to wrong information. You can again say "according to economists" but it is really according to you unless you can post real numbers. I already posted the job creation numbers, real numbers. Here are the unemployment figures.
When Bush became President the unemployment rate was 4.2 Bush had both a GOP house and Senate until 2007. In the years 2001 - end 2006 all under GOP control the rate was in the 4's 22/72 months = 31%, in the 5's 42/72 58% and in the 6or above 8/72 = 11%

From 2007 to the end of 2008 in the 4's 12/24 = 50%, in the 5's 7/24 29% and 6 or above 5/24 =21% all as the lead up to the recession.

I will happily take responsibility for preventing the next world Depression, I will happily take responsibility for insuring millions upon millions that were never going to insured by the GOP, I will happily take responsibility for equal pay legislation, for increasing acceptance of gays, for lower gas and electric rates without gutting clear air or water, for continued allowance of private gun ownership but having a discussion of whether we need to use the background checks to screen all sales not just at gun stores, for continued investment in science and education not just more bombs and jets and for the fact that my party is still sane enough not to be arguing about whose got a bigger hands and resorting to referring to each other as Lying Ted and Little Marco. I take responsibility for all of that and much more. and that the both U6 and U5 unemployment rate is now lower under President Obama than it was under Bush in 2003 (don't you hate it when the facts disagree with your beliefs?)

The problem with your data is that you skewed it to best agree with your argument. I have provided again and again, the information that you keep asking for, on other threads. I am not going to run around in circles for a liberal to get his jollies with it. Your unemployment numbers are bogus because you never take into consideration the real numbers, of those that quit looking.
"In August, according to BLS, the nation’s civilian noninstitutional population, consisting of all people 16 or older who were not in the military or an institution, reached 251,096,000. Of those, 157,065,000 participated in the labor force by either holding a job or actively seeking one.

The 157,065,000 who participated in the labor force equaled only 62.6 percent of the 251,096,000 civilian noninstitutional population -- the same as it was in July and June. Not since October 1977, when the participation rate dropped to 62.4, has the percentage been this low." Sept 2015

So, there's some facts for you to consider. Unemployment rates are all relative to the size of the work force computed as percentage of the total population.
(don't you hate it when the facts disagree with your beliefs?)

The only source I can find with the quote were from right wing websites. What is your source? I always give a source so people can decide for themselves if their is a bias.

Do you remember the climate back then?

What does that say about our lofty congressional members that would have apparently done no homework on what was presented (as usual) and just went along with the president because they liked him

This speech is worth listening to then and now.

Are you going to deny the information because a link was not provided? Or is that like saying Trump is responsible for the violence of moveon.org thugs that crash his rallies? Just another diversion from fact.

In a debate you state and opinion. You back it up with research and you site the source to support it's credibility. Without the naming the source the debater may be using research based on a lie.

Is Trump responsible for the violence of moveon.org? I don't know.
Take a look at the moveon.org
What is MoveOn.org? | MoveOn.Org | Democracy In Action

and check out the clip from MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow discussing MoveOn’s history:

And judge for yourself.

thugs? really? they look kind of nerdy to me

The argument that Trump caused the fighting is just lame and politically motivated.

If there are thousands who came to rally with no intention what so ever to be in any type altercation as they have in the past and no matter whose rally, are we to believe that depending upon who is at the mic will determine if there is a fight?

Why is it so difficult to place the blame on the protestors who came specifically to disrupt the rally?

No different than if the same thugs were at a football game and inciting a fight. Whose fault would that be the teams?

As far as the other candidates also blaming Trump; that is nothing more than political posturing in an attempt to garner more votes for themselves. Their position has nothing to do with the cause.

Thos same thugs at one of their rally's would accomplish the same thing.

Just cut the BS and get on with something of substance to discuss.

Like how and who to beat Clinton instead of trying to fracture within the party.

Leave the BS at the doorstep.

Assemble and protest outside of the venue. Let Trump be Trump. You need to hear what has to say. He doesn't have a past in politics to examine. He was a businessman that had to act in the best interest of his business. Now he is a politician who will be acting in the best interest of his constituency.

Who is his base?
And what does he say he will do to improve their lives?
They need decent paying jobs. What's his plan? Move the manufacturing plants back here. The world is more modern now. Robots have replaced many of the jobs done before by people. Take a look at how a Tesla is made:

IN a debate???? Are you for real? If you don't like my comment, then provide your own opinion. But, you are just baiting and arguing because you are scared of Trump. You see, even though I did not vote for him I believe he has the same right to say stupid things that Bernie or Hillary has. If they want to lie and make promises they can't keep, then he has the same right. Only the left is so afraid of him that they resort to disruptions and violence. If they want to demonstrate outside the venue, fine. But, if they come inside and disrupt, they deserve whatever happens to them. If they got in my face while I was watching the show, I would clock them too. If you libtards have a problem with that, then don't enter the fray. It seems that you must be pretty ignorant and retarded if you knowingly go into a mass gathering of people that do not agree with you and then try to disrupt the PRIVATE function. But, I have never considered liberals to be that logical or having common sense. Not being derogatory, just my observation.