Who voted for Bush

[MaddLlama]

I was being sarcastic when I said conned...

Now, should we start listing mistakes presidents made? How about Clinton ignoring attacks from terrorists or the B.J. in the Oval Office? How about Bush I not getting rid of Saddam the first time? How about Iran Contra? What about Vietnam? How about our founding fathers allowing slavery in the constitution? The list could go on and on. History will determine where mistakes have been made. History will also determine where there has been success.

I seriously hope you don't believe that history will say the Bush Jr administration was a success...

 

[Ciscokid]

I actually thought Clinton was OK. Wish he was still in office as a matter of fact.

 

[lilithu]

I think dg above makes allowance for helping the poor, widows and orphans shakti. In this sense I very much agree with his 'conservative' values.

OK, but then I don't understand why what you guys call 'conservative' values are what I call liberal values.

For me, and I'll try to say this in as non-biased a way as possible:

A liberal trusts individuals more than govt when it comes to social issues. So individuals are allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else, and I believe that for the most part this will work out fine. And a liberal trusts govt more than individuals when it comes to fiscal issues. So I believe that govt does a better job of making sure that basic human needs are provided for the disposessed than if we just left it up to the charity of individuals.

A conservative trusts individuals more than govt when it comes to fiscal issues. So govt services should be minimal because individuals know better than govt what their money should go to in terms of helping others. And a conservative trusts govt more than individuals when it comes to social issues. So govt has the responsibility to uphold moral standards, which if left up purely to individuals, would decline.

A libertarian trusts individuals more than govt in both social and fiscal issues.

And a totalitarian would trust govt more than individuals in both social and fiscal issues, but I don't think we have many of those?

I think the labels conservative and liberal are not very useful these days; they tend to increase the polarization I blame for a lot of the mess we seem to be in. I register independent, but I'm not totally happy about that because it means I lose my voice in the primaries, although I'm not sure that matters a whole lot.

I agree there's a lot of confusion, but I know of no other word that better describes my basic positions. As for the polarization, I just try not to assume that I'm gonna dislike a person just because of the political label that they choose for themselves. We may even agree on a few things.

I wouldn't mind the lack of distinction between the parties if either one of them could come up with a candidate with some integrity, intelligence and compassion.

Yup.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I wasn't old enough for the first term, and the second one, I would rather have voted for my friend that wants to run, but hasn't the slightest idea of what to do, or my other friend who wants to run, win, and establish a dictatorship.

 

[Booko]

Experience.

Yes, and mine runs counter to yours.

So unless someone comes up with some actual figures, it's he said she said, nu?

 

[jonny]

Yes, and mine runs counter to yours.

So unless someone comes up with some actual figures, it's he said she said, nu?

The figures in the book the Millionaire Mind support my position.

 

[Booko]

And Bush

Bush went to Yale. He didn't have the rest of the stuff on his CV. And if his Daddy didn't have money and influence, one wonders if he woulda made it through Yale.

Have you ever read "The Millionaire Next Door" or "The Millionaire Mind"? Hate to break it to you, but it isn't the A students who usually become millionaires...I know, I'm associating income with employment status, but let's just ignore that. You get my point. The average millionaire has a 2.92 GPA and an SAT score between 1100 and 1300.

No, what you're doing is equating intelligence with the ability to create or accumulate wealth, which is faulty for certain.

Did it ever occur to you that intelligent people, overall, might possibly value knowledge more than money? And that they might define "success" differently, in ways that go beyond one's balance sheet?

Another point: The sorts of abilities that set someone up to create or accumulate wealth are not things we normally associate with "intelligence" in that they are not academic. So I'm not at all surprised that millionaires have a lower GPA. Their forms of intelligence are not measured in our system.

In addition, some millionaires are millionaires because they have connections. Having connections often means you don't have to work very hard to get on in the world. I think that's how guys like Brownie get their jobs.

 

[jonny]

This is about Bush, not my ability (or lack thereof) to type and spell.

No. This is about flaming people who support Bush. I'm done playing.

 

[lilithu]

No. This is about flaming people who support Bush. I'm done playing.

Not that I particularly enjoy this "game" but show me one incidence in this thread where you or any other Bush supporter have been flamed.

 

[Booko]

BTW, Strategery is one of my favorite words now. Come on, you've gotta admit that it's a lot cooler to say than strategy.

You don't want to hear what my wargaming buds make of that one. :cover:

And most of them are ex-military, and tend to be pretty conservative as well.

 

[Booko]

With about 75 missiles timed to explode simultaneously in unsuspecting countries on two continents, the operation was the most formidable U.S. military assault ever against a private sponsor of terrorism.

And the response of many politicians of a certain party, who now try to claim that Clinton didn't do enough about OBL, was to scream "Wag the Dog!" and claim Clinton was wasting military resources for no good reason, because going after that some insignificant terrorist like OBL wasn't worth so many armaments.

Some of us were actually alive and paying attention then and actually remember what was said by whom.

And those of us who were, and are paying attention now, are nothing short of FLABBERGASTED by the hypocrisy and rank lies being put out there.

To call it disgusting and despicable would be a high compliment.

 

[Smoke]

I don't think political parties of any sort are an answer, though, because they inherently divide people into camps. Personally, I'd rather see political parties of any sort banned outright. Well, I won't be holding my breath waiting for that day, though, as I am not silly enough to expect it to happen in my lifetime.

It would probably be an improvement, though. One of the problems with our process is that the Constitution wasn't written with political parties in mind. A parliamentary system would be better, but I'm the last one to call for a constitutional convention in the current climate.

 

[Smoke]

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006

I read the excerpt from Woodward's new book in Newsweek this evening. In it, Andrew Card implies that Bush would have liked to fire Rummy, but was afraid to face the inevitable inquiry into the conduct of the war that would have accompanied the confirmation hearing for Rummy's replacement.

 

[lilithu]

And the response of many politicians of a certain party, who now try to claim that Clinton didn't do enough about OBL, was to scream "Wag the Dog!" and claim Clinton was wasting military resources for no good reason, because going after that some insignificant terrorist like OBL wasn't worth so many armaments.

Some of us were actually alive and paying attention then and actually remember what was said by whom.

And those of us who were, and are paying attention now, are nothing short of FLABBERGASTED by the hypocrisy and rank lies being put out there.

To call it disgusting and despicable would be a high compliment.

I have to admit that at the time when it happened, I was one of those angry with Clinton for "attacking another country for no good reason." I mean a lot of us were oblivious, both liberal and conservative. That the Clinton administration put two and two together and tried to do something about it, against popular opinion, says tons. If they had succeeded in their goal, we woulda never known what they accomplished. And since they failed, they get blamed. Even tho they tried and Bush was warned and had nine months to do something about it and did nothing. So yeah, these accusations are preposterous. Did you see the FOX interview with Chris Wallace? They really have no honor.

 

[Booko]

It would probably be an improvement, though. One of the problems with our process is that the Constitution wasn't written with political parties in mind. A parliamentary system would be better, but I'm the last one to call for a constitutional convention in the current climate.

I don't think moving to a parliamentary system would be so much better, though, as long as partisan politics is still involved. Look at the UK for an example. They have their problems also.

The problems today, at least some of the largest ones, are that our representatives are not actually representing *us*. They represent their political parties, lobbyists representing big money organizations and businesses, and pretty much anyone but us -- unless it's something like the Dubai Ports Deal that gets so many panties in a wad that even they come to their senses and realize we just might not vote them back into office. But that rarely happens.

I wonder what would happen to campaigns if we made it illegal for anyone other than a person registered to vote in a candidate's district to contribute to the campaign, and then limited that to some amount?

And as long as parties are around, politicians will vote along party lines pretty much, rather than vote to actually represent us, or goodness knows, actually be "leaders" and vote their conscience.

 

[Smoke]

Is Clinton remembered for his intellect, or his ability to relate to the American people? Democrats parade Clinton as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Why the change of heart now?

There's no doubt at all about Clinton's intellectual abilities. I wouldn't parade him as the greatest thing as sliced bread, but then I'm not a Democrat, either. I disliked him intensely when he was in office but as much as I dislike him, after 5½ years of Bush I'd be happy to see Clinton as President For Life.

Again, I ask "what qualifies someone to lead our country?" Intellectualism doesn't equal leadership. That's why the people in school getting the C's usually end up being the bosses of the people getting straight A's.

Nobody expects the president to be Einstein, but we have a man in charge who won't read reports and can't even grasp what's going on around him -- not because he's insurmountably stupid, but because he's lazy and uninterested. This is both an intellectual problem and a moral shortcoming, and there's no excuse for either in a man who aspires to that kind of power.

 

[dbakerman76]

I'm a libertarian who was disgusted by my own party's nominee and ended up voting for Bush. It wasn't one of my brighter moments and if I could have taken it back I would have.

 

[spacemonkey]

And the response of many politicians of a certain party, who now try to claim that Clinton didn't do enough about OBL, was to scream "Wag the Dog!" and claim Clinton was wasting military resources for no good reason, because going after that some insignificant terrorist like OBL wasn't worth so many armaments.

Some of us were actually alive and paying attention then and actually remember what was said by whom.

And those of us who were, and are paying attention now, are nothing short of FLABBERGASTED by the hypocrisy and rank lies being put out there.

To call it disgusting and despicable would be a high compliment.

I was onboard the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf for this military action, the media was allowed on for one day and the only thing they could think to ask us is if we felt that Clinton was trying to divert attention away from his "extracurricular activites"(for lack of a better way to put it). The vast majority stood behind Clinton's actions, the bombing of the USS Cole still fresh in every ones mind. This is one of the only times I can recall anyone in the military supporting Clinton.

 

[Booko]

I was onboard the USS Enterprise in the Persian Gulf for this military action, the media was allowed on for one day and the only thing they could think to ask us is if we felt that Clinton was trying to divert attention away from his "extracurricular activites"(for lack of a better way to put it). The vast majority stood behind Clinton's actions, the bombing of the USS Cole still fresh in every ones mind. This is one of the only times I can recall anyone in the military supporting Clinton.

That's what I hear from my friend who was in the Spec. Ops at the time.

I know that guys in the service were not too keen on Clinton, and likely vice versa, but somehow he had enough sense to know that military matters were not something he was competent in, and so he bothred to listen to what his brass had to say.

I'm dumbfounded at what's happening to our brass now. Well, that and some other matters that would actually "support" our troops, as opposed to just sticking a stupid magnet on your car and pretending that means something.

 

[shema]

I agree, and I did vote for Nader.

The reason we're getting such terrible candidates on BOTH SIDES of the political fence is because the wealthy corporations and special interests that are funding BOTH party's campaigns are choosing the candidates they want. Kerry was a terrible candidate, and so was Bush, and we all knew it. But both of them are rich, and are hopelessly aligned with the rich, and both of them could be counted on to do what their rich friends want them to. McCain isn't a 'rich-boy' and couldn't be trusted to act in their interest, and that's why the wealthy republican sponsors funding the republican campaign didn't want him. Likewise, Howard Dean was not a rich-boy, either, and couldn't be trusted to do their bidding if elected, and so he wasn't acceptable to the real power-brokers on the democratic side.

And you may as well expect the same poor choices in the next elections, too, because nothing in the system has changed. The wealthy campaign financiers are going to continue to choose rich-boy hand puppets who they know will do their bidding as candidates, and they will continue to blackball any real candidate that they can't control, regardless of party affiliation, just like they did to McCain and Dean.

McCain sadly has chosen to suck up to them, hoping I suppose to convince them to run him as a republican candidate, but I don't think it'll work. And even if it does, and the wealthy campaign financiers choose to run him, who's going to vote for such a pathetic suck-up? Not me. McCain could have been a true hero, and broken American politics wide open had he switched to an independent ticket and ran against both Bush AND Kerry in the last election. And I think he could have won, too. But he wussed out, and stumped for Bush even though he knew Bush was a terrible candidate. He went from hero to zero, if you ask me.

I'll continue to vote for third party candidates, hoping that some day my fellow citizens will wake up and see that the wealthy elite are calling the shots in both major parties, and the only way to counter them is by creating and supporting ligitimate third, forth, and fifth parties until we can finally get some real campaign finance reforms passed.

:yes: my thoughts exactly !!! great post