War/Peace and You might be a Republican

ypsidan04 · 17-07-2004, 00:12

Warmonger and Peacenik

You might be a Republican if

spyretto · 22-07-2004, 00:25

American wars are cool.

But Bush don't have time for that now, being too busy with his campaign and all. When he's re-elected he'll mastermind the new war. After all 911 is enough reason to have the world in fear and disarray for another 2 decades.

And that is equally cool.

Unplugged · 22-07-2004, 02:26

Was that supposed to be funny, spyretto?

ypsidan04, thanks for the links

Very cool

ypsidan04 · 22-07-2004, 03:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyretto

When he's re-elected

Hahaha.

"When"

Right.

russkayatatu · 22-07-2004, 23:01

ypsidan04, I wish

All the polls I've seen have them roughly equal - give or take 3 percentage points, which effectively means either one could be ahead. Like this page, for example.

Bush must have something that's really appealing to Americans, or at least half of Americans. Like a friend of mine said, shit doesn't stick to this guy.

Thanks for the links, though. I like the first one especially

This page, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," is pretty scary too: as an example: "On the specific issue of the WMDs, 62 percent say that the government either stretched the truth (52 percent) or presented evidence they knew was false (10 percent). And on the Saddam–Al Qaeda link, 56 percent believe that the government either stretched the truth (46 percent) or presented evidence they knew was false (10 percent)."

In other words, 38 and 44 percent respectively think that the government was A-OK on WMDs and on the Saddam-Al Qaeda link

And those are the polls for which there actually is a sort of "democratic majority."

We'll be lucky if he's not re-elected

By the way, the electoral college is an unfair and outdated system - both campaigns agree that it'll come down to a few thousand votes in a few states. Which is also dangerous; the Republican efforts in those states sounds more organized, and they have more volunteers, too.

With a more mobile citizenry, why should the president be elected by STATES, rather than by the population? I've lived in 5 states in 22 years. The concept of the state doesn't mean what it did when the electoral college was implemented.

Oh yeah, and there were some interesting articles recently in the Economist about the election and how it's possible, if there's a tie in the electoral college (which does not actually sound that unlikely) that Bush could win through a congressional vote.

Unplugged · 23-07-2004, 07:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by russkayatatu

By the way, the electoral college is an unfair and outdated system - both campaigns agree that it'll come down to a few thousand votes in a few states. Which is also dangerous; the Republican efforts in those states sounds more organized, and they have more volunteers, too.

With a more mobile citizenry, why should the president be elected by STATES, rather than by the population? I've lived in 5 states in 22 years. The concept of the state doesn't mean what it did when the electoral college was implemented.

I've always thought this was very stupid. I would feel cheated if I lived in a country with such voting systems

spyretto · 28-07-2004, 22:11

The funny thing is that he will be re-elected, that's the funny thing. After all this fuss about the shortcomings of his administration Bush will be re-elected.

I think only American voters have a say in this, we don't. If they like Bush and want to see him in office for another four years it's up to them. The rest of the world can just sit and watch.

haku · 30-07-2004, 19:22

Well, i've listened to Kerry's recent speech and i realize now that it doesn't make any difference if he's elected instead of Bush because i haven't heard any real difference in what they say.

They have the same scary ultra patriotic speech, and the same scary fanatics cheering them up... Kerry said the same things as Bush "stronger army", "more powerful America" (how more powerful can they get?), "won't respect any international organization", etc...

Basically Kerry said the US will become even more powerful and will continue to dictate their rule to the world, by military means if some countries don't comply fast enough. "Do what we want or prepare to be destroyed", Kerry has the same basic message as Bush (at least for the international audience) except he's stating it with better synthax and pronunciation.

The US have become a scary country.

ypsidan04 · 05-08-2004, 01:53

Bush's Grim Poll Numbers

http://slate.msn.com/id/2104745/

spyretto · 14-08-2004, 04:06

But if Bush is re-elected after all, this will be the people's approval of Bush's policies. When the majority of US voters give Bush the green light we'll be talking about a strengthening of Bush's electoratate ( as last time he didn't even have the majority of votes

)

As it is known, the Republican voters are more than the Democrat voters. For a Democrat candidate to win they need to have somebody else to "leech" a number of the Republican power - as it happened with Perrot in the past.

So If Bush is not re-elected that will mean that some Republican voters disapprove of his policies and that would make a difference indeed. But If he is elected - which is what I think will happen - then they either approve of Bush's policies or it doesn't make a difference.

Those polls were after the convention. The Republicans didn't have a convention yet, am I right?
Mark these words, Bush wil be re-elected.

spyretto · 07-09-2004, 04:34

ok, now that it is confirmed that Bush will be re-elected, a friend of mine brought this argument forward, which I think it's valid:

If Bush is not satan or the antichrist

you have to take into account that he has already "fought" his war. If Kerry is elected he'll probably push for his own war - in the logic that every American president must have his own war.
In that sense, Bush's re-election may be better for world peace. Just think about it

ypsidan04 · 15-09-2004, 03:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by spyretto

In that sense, Bush's re-election may be better for world peace. Just think about it

A lot of people, myself included, would have to disagree with you there.

Carter didn't have a war - he just won a Nobel Peace Prize for god sakes. Eisenhower didn't have a war, and he even used to be a REAL commander. Ford certainly didn't have a war. Nixon didn't START a war. In fact, he broke our silence with China. Every President has to have his own war. Please!

If it wasn't for Saddam and Milosevic, Bush Sr. and Clinton wouldn't have had wars. You think MOST if not all Presidents go around looking for wars to fight? No, they don't. Only this schmuck and Ronald Reagan. They both have to have wars on ideas.

Terrorism, Drugs, AIDS, Communism, Liberals, the Environment, Working people. Wars on ideas never end. Just like it seems that this "conflict" won't end either.

spyretto · 20-09-2004, 20:57

Nixon, Ford...The cold war doesn't count? How about little "interventions" of the US around the globe...remember Grenada? JFK was assasinated so that Nixon could have his way with the Vietnam war...what are you talking about???

Bush will have his stupid war to the very end. It's his vindication. After his re-election Bush will press things , as Kerry very well pointed out, he's gonna have more troops in Iraq...

Bush said this war can't be won and then recoiled under pressure. Even he knows how impossible this task is.