Bush

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

There has been a lot....AND I MEAN A LOT... of debate over him here at GT...but now that itws almost time to vote for america.....would anybody here (regardless of age) actually vote for bush to stay in office?

[Canyarion]

You all know what I think about it. :cool:

[Jonbo298]

One glance at my sig and you know the answer. I'll leave it to that so I don't begin whats probably going to create alot of "talk" in this thread.

[bobcat]

I voted no...........coz I won't be ;)

[Rndm_Perfection]

You all know what I think about it. :cool:

You're not a legal voter. Either way, I'm sure you know little about the stances of Bush's competitors. You simply know what the media tells you about Bush, and the media is liberal.

So yes, I know what you would vote if you had the chance.

[Bond]

This is going to be a very accurate measure of how popular Bush is...

[Dark Samurai]

i vote NAY

[Ginkasa]

I voted no, but I will admit that's only because that's how my parents would vote.

I don't really see a reason for me to get deeply involved in politics before I'm able to vote.


*shrugs and walks away*

[gekko]

This poll should really be restricted to those who can vote. Minors and non-American citizens shouldn't matter. Like I really care what you Canadians think, last time I checked, your opinion didn't matter in this country.

But since we can't restrict the voting, this poll will be lop-sided.

[Happydude]

HELL YES! but that's only because i won't acually be voting for him :p


but he's cool cause he's not too bright :p

[One Winged Angel]

Even though most of the members here cant vote, doesnt mean they shouldn't speak their mind.

I'm going to have to yes... in the case Dean runs against him.

[Vampyr]

This poll should really be restricted to those who can vote. Minors and non-American citizens shouldn't matter. Like I really care what you Canadians think, last time I checked, your opinion didn't matter in this country.

But since we can't restrict the voting, this poll will be lop-sided.

Check the poll title.

It says "Would you vote for Bush?"

It does not say "Are you going to vote for Bush?"

Key word being would... :rolleyes:

[The Germanator]

I am now just old enough to vote, though I haven't registered yet, better do that. I will vote democratic though, so my answer to this poll is "no".

[GameKinG]

I dont want ant anybody too liberal. If I could vote, and it was between him and dean, I would vote bush.

[Joeiss]

I wouldn't vote for him, but I think he has a good chance to get re-elected.

[gekko]

Check the poll title.

It says "Would you vote for Bush?"

It does not say "Are you going to vote for Bush?"

Key word being would... :rolleyes:

That's like asking me would I vote for Chirac. Hell no, but last time I checked, my opinion has no say in that communist land.

So when you get these polls that have 3:1 against Bush, and then he wins by a landslide, you realize something is wrong. Not saying he'll win by a landslide, but I haven't seen too many Canadians favor Bush, so the poll is stacked against him.

Given an economy beginning to go down hill, and the largest attack on this country since 1941. The real question is, What Would Gore Do? Flee to Canada ;)

[Dylflon]

Fleeing to Canada is a good idea. We have good beer and beautiful women. It is a true land of oportunity. :canada:

[Vampyr]

That's like asking me would I vote for Chirac. Hell no, but last time I checked, my opinion has no say in that communist land.

Yes. That's EXACTLY like what its asking. (that wasnt sarcasm, by the way.) Your opinion wouldnt have any say in the real world, but if someone got on here and made a poll of that, they would be asking WOULD you vote for him. Canadians might not be able to vote in the real world, but this poll is asking EVERYONE if they WOULD vote for Bush.

Fleeing to Canada is a good idea. We have good beer and beautiful women. It is a true land of oportunity.

*Packs suitcase and runs North.*

[Jason1]

Like I really care what you Canadians think, last time I checked, your opinion didn't matter in this country.



Yea!!! Canada SUCKX0rZ!!!!!!

erm I mean...no

just a simple no.

[DimHalo]

I went with yes for a couple of reasons. But it was a really tough decision (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting in the real election). My main reason was because I think that all this mess can only be mended but the person that has been orchestrating it from the beginning (finish what you begin), but I don't know all the politics of it so I am choosing not to put up a real strong argument.

[Vampyr]

I went with yes for a couple of reasons. But it was a really tough decision (which is one of the reasons I will not be voting in the real election). My main reason was because I think that all this mess can only be mended but the person that has been orchestrating it from the beginning (finish what you begin), but I don't know all the politics of it so I am choosing not to put up a real strong argument.

If I was old enough to vote, I would always vote. I would never just "not do it" becuase it was "too hard a decision." One reason I would always vote is that its a right given to us that people fight and die for every single day. Since its that important, Im going to vote. Its what makes democracy go round.

The second reason I would always vote, is so that I can complain if the guy I dont vote for wins and he does a bad job. So lets say you dont vote, then you have no right what-so-ever to complain. I like complaining, so Im going to vote so that I can complain.

So if I were you, I would just go vote for some guy running independently, that you know is going to loose. This way your not throwing away your right earned through the life of others, and you'll be able to complain in the end. :)

[DimHalo]

If I was old enough to vote, I would always vote. I would never just "not do it" becuase it was "too hard a decision." One reason I would always vote is that its a right given to us that people fight and die for every single day. Since its that important, Im going to vote. Its what makes democracy go round.

The second reason I would always vote, is so that I can complain if the guy I dont vote for wins and he does a bad job. So lets say you dont vote, then you have no right what-so-ever to complain. I like complaining, so Im going to vote so that I can complain.

So if I were you, I would just go vote for some guy running independently, that you know is going to loose. This way your not throwing away your right earned through the life of others, and you'll be able to complain in the end. :)
but if i go and vote for someone that i know absolutely nothing about i am jeopardizing the right given to me because i am expected to make good decisions with such things, if i make bad decisions it affects other people.

[Vampyr]

but if i go and vote for someone that i know absolutely nothing about i am jeopardizing the right given to me because i am expected to make good decisions with such things, if i make bad decisions it affects other people.

True. But if you pick the guy you know is going to loose, its not always a bad decision. You could truthfully believe that he is the best man (or woman) for the job.

[Kitana85]

Okay, here it goes...

For starters, I'm a Political Science major in college, so obviously, I pay a lot of attention to what is going on in the political arena.
I WOULD NOT EVER vote for Bush... however, I can't deal with Dean either. Dean is SUCH A FREAKING MODERATE!!!! I cannot understand why democrats would through their support behind someone so blatently moderate mascerading as a progressive. And indeed, that is what I would support, a truly proggresive candidate. My major fear about Dean is that, if elected, people would stop working toward progresssive goals, and afterwards, we would have to start again. If say, Clark was elected, as much as I'm not a fan of his, at least people acknoledge that he is a moderate, and would treat his administration as such.

If Bush is elected again, I will truly be scared for the less fortunate of America, those who cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps because they are too poor to afford the bootstraps... and there is a growing number of those people...

The deficient is getting worse the percenteges not seen since Regean, and Bush's mean sof balenceing the budget simply don't make sense.

oh and PLEASE people, its LOSE, not LOOSE...

[gekko]

oh and PLEASE people, its LOSE, not LOOSE...

What, you're an English major now too? :rolleyes:

J/K. But really, political science? Ick.

[Hero2]

Im registered to vote but I dont think I will i havent seen ant good canidates. But I still dont want to vote for bush I dident like him to begin with. I hate politcs

[Professor S]

Dean is a moderate? Last time I checked he was a raving liberal. He might not be a socialist, but he's the LEAST moderate out of all the Democratic candidates. Also, the use of the word "progressive" is very relative in political terms.

As for me? I'll vote for Bush, but I'll be dreaming of "President McCain".

[Dylflon]

Rgiht wingers are hard to have discussions with. All they do is shoot down your opinions and try to cram their's down your throat and call you stupid for not agreeing with them...in my experience in talking with right wingers at least.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

i havent checked this thread since i made, it, but the fact is that who the president of the united states is happens to affect a lot of people in the world, especially canada, canada and U.S.A.'s economies are pretty closely bound, despite the fact that we're slowly dislodging from that, America's actions still have a profound effect on us, not to mention the fact that the majority of the news broadcasting is about what America is doing. And Gekko, if you want to look at it from that perspective, then tell me this, why aer we discussing this on a video game forum, it really doesn't matter, its just about opinions, regardless of wether those opinions matter, you'd be surprised how often peopel can't wait to let theirs out.

[Professor S]

Rgiht wingers are hard to have discussions with. All they do is shoot down your opinions and try to cram their's down your throat and call you stupid for not agreeing with them...in my experience in talking with right wingers at least.

Thats because you damn liberals just won't listen... ;)

I have never yelled at anyone or called anyone stupid who presented a well thought out and enlightened opinion on politics, be it liberal or conservative.

Unfortunately I don't find "Bush is a Moron", "Blood for Oil", "Daddy's War", "Iraq=Vietnam", "Republicans = Evil Empire", etc. to be enlightened or well thought out in the least.

Here's a tip: If you want to make a sensible argument against Bush, don't bring up the war. You won't win because no matter why we went in to Iraq, we ended up ending the reign of a homicidal maniac and probably saved a million lives in the process. You want to get at Bush? Concentrate on his domestic policies, not his foreign ones.

Example: The Medicare Bill. Highly suspect to say the least. Its still better than nothing, but its far from perfect and throws a lot of power in the hands of pharmaceutical companies. Now Pharm companies have historically been the more benevolent of large corporations, but the potential for abuse still remains. Plus there's some environmental issues to look at also with his legislation. Add to that his record as a staunch Christian who tends to try and legislate morals ina secular society.

Now I don't think that all of these things are necessarily bad, but they are valid areas of contention. If you look into them, you could get some serious ammo for your arguments against Bush.

[Bond]

Dean = George McGovern

Leaving now...

[Jason1]

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

[Professor S]

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

This is exactly why liberals will never be taken seriously by the masses and Dean will be crushed if he gets the nomination. "Full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing."

Thank you for giving us all a perfect example of what I was talking about in my earlier post.

[Rndm_Perfection]

There's a lot of bad I could say about Bush, but personally I think this web site sums it up pretty good.

http://www.bushorchimp.com/

Why do I have the feeling that you look like a chimp as well?


... And aren't you the one that I've heard to be racist? I know it's unrelated... but it's fun to bring up in debates.

[GiMpY-wAnNaBe]

the resemblance is remarkable :D

[Kitana85]

I don't have a whole lot of time to type this, or it would be much better and I would have posted sooner. My internet connection at home SUCKS!

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system. Though the scores on these tests have improved since their implementation, the education the students have recieved has taken a nose-dive. As parents, students, teachers, and administrators have been saying, the schools are only able to teach to the test. Indeed, for the schools to exist, there is no time for any material not on the test. In many districs, students no longer read classic books or study real life situations. Theya re not taught how to survive, only how to fill in bubbles and the different ways the test is set up. They are only taught what will get the school more funding and a better rating. The state takes action against schools whose scores fall.
Bush wants to implement this system nation wide. Is the education system in America not bad enough as it is? When American students are pitted against foreign students in science and mathmatics competitions, Americans tend to score close to the bottem. Students are having enough trouble paying attention when there is real material to be learned. This system would bring down an already flawed system. The status quo is far better than the uneducated young people this system could produce.

As I said before, I have much more I could say, but I don't have time to say anymore.


oh yeah, and for whomever asked political science is basically the study of politics, governments, and cultures.

[Dark Samurai]

Thank You!!!!!

[Bond]

I don't have a whole lot of time to type this, or it would be much better and I would have posted sooner. My internet connection at home SUCKS!

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system. Though the scores on these tests have improved since their implementation, the education the students have recieved has taken a nose-dive. As parents, students, teachers, and administrators have been saying, the schools are only able to teach to the test. Indeed, for the schools to exist, there is no time for any material not on the test. In many districs, students no longer read classic books or study real life situations. Theya re not taught how to survive, only how to fill in bubbles and the different ways the test is set up. They are only taught what will get the school more funding and a better rating. The state takes action against schools whose scores fall.
Bush wants to implement this system nation wide. Is the education system in America not bad enough as it is? When American students are pitted against foreign students in science and mathmatics competitions, Americans tend to score close to the bottem. Students are having enough trouble paying attention when there is real material to be learned. This system would bring down an already flawed system. The status quo is far better than the uneducated young people this system could produce.

As I said before, I have much more I could say, but I don't have time to say anymore.


oh yeah, and for whomever asked political science is basically the study of politics, governments, and cultures.
How liberal are your professors?

[rottwylor]

You're not a legal voter. Either way, I'm sure you know little about the stances of Bush's competitors. You simply know what the media tells you about Bush, and the media is liberal.

So yes, I know what you would vote if you had the chance.

I am a legal voter, and I have kept up with all of the candidates.. and i still wouldn't vote for Bush.

Like my gay buddies say... "Just say no to Bush"

[gekko]

Anyhow, Bush has trouble seeing the big picture. He doesn't seem to understand how in the long run, his actions can come back to hurt us. If America faces some sort of horrible economic (read worse economic) or natural disaster, and needs the help of the world, if they are angry with us, we could possibly not get it. Also, the entire world against the US would not be a good thing. HOWEVER, this is merely specualtion. Facts are as follows.

Funny that you fail to mention that if Bush decided not to act, his action could've come back to hurt us as well. Whenever your liberal professors decide to look at reality, they'll tell you that the US has faced many natural disasters, and no one cared. Nothing's changed. Even the Canadians (http://www.dtl.org/ethics/article/sept-11/canadian.htm) have seen it.

When Bush was governmer of Texas, he RUINED the education system. To save the troubled schools in much of the state, he implemented a rigourous stanardized testing system.

If you ever want to get a job doing anything but editorials for the New York Times, you may want to take my advice. Bush didn't single-handedly ruin anything. Your first sentence does a great job of establishing bias and discrediting everything that you have to say. If you actually expect someone to take you seriously, you should try saying "While Bush in office, the educational system in Texas was ruined." What they fail to teach you in political science is that we have a system of checks and balances in this country, and anything that Bush approved while governer of Texas, had to first be passed by congress. And you may find this hard to believe, but everything Bush has done so far as President, I'll be damned, it was also passed by congress first. Imagine that.

Your professors do a good job of using scapegoats and pointing out everything that's wrong with the world while offering no realistic suggestions on how to prove it. God bless the Democrats.

[Professor S]

I just realized how much I love this board. Man, this is a fantastic debate going on here and I doubt I would be able to find it anywhere else.

[Canyarion]

I'm sure you'd find one that's twice as good elsewhere.

I don't really care about your president. :unsure:

[Kitana85]

Whenever your liberal professors decide to look at reality

Hate to break it to your conservative asses, but my professors regardless of how conservative they are, have NOTHING to do with my political observations.

Oh yeah, and as for writing editorials for the NYTimes, yeah, at least that way I could garentee them being read. At any rate, I hate higher asperations. And Gekko, get over your self... at least Geiko can save you money on car insurence, you're just obnoxious. Don't talk about my professors, and for goodness sake, stop blasting Democrats, of which I am not one, for the record, come up with something factual...instead of being a hypocrite and just blasting others.


back to the topic...

[Stonecutter]

I was going to leave this whole thing alone, but then I read this.

Dean is SUCH A FREAKING MODERATE!!!!


Ok, if you believe that, you're a moron.

I don't mean that as a Flame. I mean that an actual fact.


Dean is the Anti-Bush, he's the most liberal candidate in almost half a century to have a legitimate shot at winning his party's nomination, which he will do.


He also has a legit shot at winning the presidency, despite what Fox News may be telling you.

And here's why.

Political Scientist *read: People not named Kitana* used to say that our country is 40/40/20. 40% of the population, if they were to vote, would always vote democratic, 40% always republican and 20% would be the swing. Most everyone agrees that the divide is now 45/45/10.

It is for this exact reason, that Dean has the only shot among the dems of knocking off Bush.

Al Gore tried to be Clinton politically. Technically (and politically, meaning platform wise) Gore = Clinton-Penis, but as a politician, and as a person, he did not appeal to the moderates as well as Clinton did (and as well as bush did/does) but Gore still went for the swing vote first. Gore did little or nothing about the democratic base. He didn't target the people that voted for Clinton, he just assumed that he would win their votes, but as republicans love to point out, 2000 was a great year for the republican party and minority voters/women (relatively.) The republicans beat the dems at their own game in 2000.

Dean isn't going to appeal to many moderates (of the 10% swing, he'll be lucky to get 3%) but he will (if he plays his cards right) appeal to the base. Dean needs people pissed at bush. He needs the fury that the democratic party displayed right after the decision in Florida. Democrats don't need moderates to vote for them to win the election, they just need democrats. Lots and lots of them. Because the republicans are the party in power, their political base is content right now with the way things are and will be more apathetic towards the process. If Dean can get enough of the base behind him, he can win.

I don't have illusions of grandeur. I know Dean's a huge underdog. But if he plays his cards perfectly, he can beat Bush in November, and he's the only democrat who can.


Edit: Oh yeah, one more thing. Before Bond does his George McGovern dance. Remember that the McGovern Vs Nixon election was the first election after the voting age was lowered to 18, and McGovern was the candidate of the Hippies....... who didn't vote. McGovern didn't win the base, which is exactly my point. Hippies=Lazy drug infested bums who make a bad political base. Dean needs people who are pissed off, not finding god in a field after an acid trip.

There are plenty of people pissed at bush in this country, dean needs all of their votes, and he needs to cultivate more of them.



http://www.democracymeansyou.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/stk-bushlied-300.gif

[Professor S]

Dean will lose the election by a landslide for one basic reason:

When given the choice between Bush or Dean, many democrats that supported Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman will NOT vote for Dean as they'll consider Bush the lesser of two evils in these times. Also, Dean will get NO republican crossover vote, like a more MODERATE democrat would and Clinton did during his first campaign.

Dean scares the crap out of a lot of democrats too, not just republicans.

[Stonecutter]

Dean can still win the democratic base.


Remember, EVERYONE who voted for Gore was pissed off after the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote. Dean needs to bring back the fire.


He's also got the unions behind him, which will bring a lot of moderate votes over in the end.

He also has Jesse Jackson Jr.

What he really needs a good VP candidate to balance the ticket. That's how he's going to get his moderate votes. But there are enough liberal votes out there to win, if he plays his cards right. Obviously he won't win without the moderates, but he can win without the swing votes.


And remind enough of the yuppie republicans how badly Bush ****ed up the war, how they're all still flower children at heart, and you will get some crossover. Sure, the backbone of the republican party (evangelical Christians, old farts and racists,) won't vote for dean under any circumstance, but the trendy republican youth can be swayed to Dean.

[Professor S]

Dean can still win the democratic base.


Remember, EVERYONE who voted for Gore was pissed off after the 2000 election. Gore won the popular vote. Dean needs to bring back the fire.


He's also got the unions behind him, which will bring a lot of moderate votes over in the end.

He also has Jesse Jackson Jr.

What he really needs a good VP candidate to balance the ticket. That's how he's going to get his moderate votes. But there are enough liberal votes out there to win, if he plays his cards right. Obviously he won't win without the moderates, but he can win without the swing votes.


And remind enough of the yuppie republicans how badly Bush ****ed up the war, how they're all still flower children at heart, and you will get some crossover. Sure, the backbone of the republican party (evangelical Christians, old farts and racists,) won't vote for dean under any circumstance, but the trendy republican youth can be swayed to Dean.

If you honestly believe any of this (I don't even know when to begin with some of what you said), you are truly kidding yourslef and are a PERFECT example of why Dean is winning the Democratic nomination. In the end all these arguments are meaningless until the election. All I'll say for now is we'll just have to wait and see what happens. Then maybe the dems will begin to realize that they are killing their own party by swinging far left.