Academics predict Bush Victory

[quote name='Bann']No matter who wins this years election we all lose. Bush and Kerry are both crappy candidates. The two party system is ruining America. Sure, you can vote for whoever you want, as long as it's one of two guys. But what do I know, I'm only 16 so my opinion doesn't matter for two more years. :|[/quote]

Just to straighten you out on something.

Imagine that we had 5 candidates to really choose from. Ok so now how does America vote? People were already pissed that Bush didnt win the popular vote and that more people voted for Kerry.

Imagine an election where the president won with only 25% of the vote for them. That's 75% of voters who dont want the current president!!! How is that gonna work? I am all for the breakdown of the 2 party system..it sounds great...more could get done. But be realistic about it...

The grass only LOOKS greener on the other side...it's really just the same grass.
 
[quote name='BigNick']Bump, cause Zforce is on now. :)[/quote]

I'm flattered. I didn't know anyone cared... :D

I'm sticking with my vote that Kerry will win in a landslide. But I think someone else pointed it out before, it's not likely to be a close race...either Kerry or Bush will probably win convincingly.

I know it's a mild post but it can be hard to Bush Bash 24/7.
 
I'm voting for anyone except Bush- I wish McCain had gotten the ticket 4 years ago.

Bush decided to go to war even before he thought he had the people's concent. I work for a company who bid on contracts in Iraq prior to the publics remote knowledge that we might even slightly have a chance of doing something in Iraq. Go figure. Bush wanted to whack Saddam because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy- pure and simple. Hell, Bush is only human- get the top post in America, and do what you want- can't blame him for being a corrupt puppet- its a lot of power for such a small man.
 
[quote name='ZForce915'][quote name='BigNick']Bump, cause Zforce is on now. :)[/quote]

I'm flattered. I didn't know anyone cared... :D

I'm sticking with my vote that Kerry will win in a landslide. But I think someone else pointed it out before, it's not likely to be a close race...either Kerry or Bush will probably win convincingly.

I know it's a mild post but it can be hard to Bush Bash 24/7.[/quote]

I kept hitting F5 to read this!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='defender'][quote name='Bann']No matter who wins this years election we all lose. Bush and Kerry are both crappy candidates. The two party system is ruining America. Sure, you can vote for whoever you want, as long as it's one of two guys. But what do I know, I'm only 16 so my opinion doesn't matter for two more years. :|[/quote]

Just to straighten you out on something.

Imagine that we had 5 candidates to really choose from. Ok so now how does America vote? People were already pissed that Bush didnt win the popular vote and that more people voted for Kerry.

Imagine an election where the president won with only 25% of the vote for them. That's 75% of voters who dont want the current president!!! How is that gonna work? I am all for the breakdown of the 2 party system..it sounds great...more could get done. But be realistic about it...

The grass only LOOKS greener on the other side...it's really just the same grass.[/quote]
Yeah, I know that. Are 25% of people going to be fully satisfied with whoever wins this election? Maybe. As far as I'm concerned the only reason anyone would want to vote for Bush or Kerry is because they are either hardcore democrat or republican so they'd vote for whoever their party threw out there.

If Bush wins with 53% of the vote that's nothing to brag about either. Chances are not all of the people voted for him because they liked him, they voted for him becasue he was their best choice out of two crappy choices.

Most of the time the two party system works because you see at least one strong candidate from either party. But it's elections like this where I think it falls short of providing us with a good candidate. You shouldn't vote for who you want to be the leader of your country just because "he's better than the other guy".
 
I agree, when Bush or Kerry wins, it'll probobly be the result of apathy by people on the other side. A lot of lifelong republicans I know are disgusted with Bush because he seems to have no concept of foreign or domestic policy, and most democrats I know will only vote for Kerry because he's not Bush. Good times. Now McCain vs. Clark would've been interesting.
 
[quote name='xzafixz']Now, while i don't really support Michael Moore and what he did with Farenheit 9/11, i think that he may have really screwed Bush. I think a LOT of people were borderline and that movie pushed them over the edge. I know at least 30-40 people just here where i live that have switched parties over this movie, and unlike most, they are actually going to vote. If such a resounding effect was felt here, i think the same will happen all over the country and i feel Bush will lose because of it.[/quote]

There's something you're missing with that idea... the sort of people you're around (and the sort of people affected by that craptastic piece of trash(and yes I saw it), they're typically going to be the younger, less professional crowd. Kerry already has most of those votes. What people aren't realizing is all the money, all the professionals, all the corporations are in Bush's camp.

Carry that a step further.. where do you think your larger voter turnout percentage is? I honestly think Bush will carry the election hands down.


Of course I also think they're holding onto Osama secretly until they 'suddenly find him in a hole' a month or two before the election...
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']
Of course I also think they're holding onto Osama secretly until they 'suddenly find him in a hole' a month or two before the election...[/quote]

That wouldnt surprise me, all the dems are like where is osama, and that would be the bombshell to drop!
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='Cornfedwb']
Of course I also think they're holding onto Osama secretly until they 'suddenly find him in a hole' a month or two before the election...[/quote]

That wouldnt surprise me, all the dems are like where is osama, and that would be the bombshell to drop![/quote]

If that happened (and there was no proof they had been holding him all along).. it could create the biggest landslide victory in US history. It would bring back all the post-911 feelings of patriotism and ending terrorism, no matter what the cost. Bush would be a sure win.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='BigNick'][quote name='Cornfedwb']
Of course I also think they're holding onto Osama secretly until they 'suddenly find him in a hole' a month or two before the election...[/quote]

That wouldnt surprise me, all the dems are like where is osama, and that would be the bombshell to drop![/quote]

If that happened (and there was no proof they had been holding him all along).. it could create the biggest landslide victory in US history. It would bring back all the post-911 feelings of patriotism and ending terrorism, no matter what the cost. Bush would be a sure win.[/quote]

That would be so awesome. I would personally love to see his and saddam's execution on pay per view.
 
[quote name='BigNick']Then move. You honestly think other countries have no problems? ha ha ha moron.[/quote]

Well, for one they don't have an oil whore money slut like Dick Cheny as president.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='BigNick']Then move. You honestly think other countries have no problems? ha ha ha moron.[/quote]

Well, for one they don't have an oil whore money slut like Dick Cheny as president.[/quote]

As opposed to the French leaders and assorted UN functionaries who violated the sanction to get oil from Saddam and fund his ongoing palace construction?

So you prefer the waffling serial heiress humper and ambulance chaser team? Sad.
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're going to see Kerry get burried in a landslide. I've been saying 42 states for months and months now. I'm probably high. However since Kerry's behind by 5 points in Pennsylvania, up to 8 points in Florida which are both huge electoral states you can pretty much write Kerry off.

It doesn't matter what the nationwide popular vote is. It doesn't matter what these nationwide polls say. What matters is polls in battleground states and Bush has leads in states with more electoral votes.

Count on it bubba.[/quote]

Yes, but Democrats usually carry California, and often New York.. you can't discount those two powerhouses.[/quote]


New York and Hillary. Man, I hope that bitch nevers runs for president. That is a scary thought.[/quote]

Amen!
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='BigNick'][quote name='Cornfedwb']
Of course I also think they're holding onto Osama secretly until they 'suddenly find him in a hole' a month or two before the election...[/quote]

That wouldnt surprise me, all the dems are like where is osama, and that would be the bombshell to drop![/quote]

If that happened (and there was no proof they had been holding him all along).. it could create the biggest landslide victory in US history. It would bring back all the post-911 feelings of patriotism and ending terrorism, no matter what the cost. Bush would be a sure win.[/quote]

If any voter falls for this I think I might cry. Bin Laden is being protected in Saudi Arabia. If he is "caught" before the election it would be "staged" and then I think Bush should be "lynched".
 
Unlikely. Bin Laden in all probablility is a thin layer of organic paste beneath several tons of stone in a cllopsed cave in Afghanistan. There has not been proof offer of his continued existence for a very long time. All he'd have to do is appear in a video with some recent newspapers.

It isn't as though his ilk are unfamiliar with the idea. They do it as a matter of course when they take hostages.
 
Well, lets say the Iraq war lasts more than 3 years, that could mean the draft, and if so, I could get drafted.
Click to expand...

It is no longer a war... no we are just occupying the country. LOL :lol:
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue'][quote name='coolcato'] but how on earth could such a corrupt, decadent president who reigned over an unnessecary war[/quote]

It worked for Clinton. Kosovo?

[/quote][/quote]

Wow. Milosevic Killed Millions, saddam killed what? 100's of saudi's?
 
Quick hit thoughts here. Speaking as a far-left liberal.

1. To whoever said the Iraq war cost thousands of US citizen's lives. Have you looked at the casualty statistics? There's less than 1000 dead since the start of the war. I'm not saying it won't hit over 1000 by the time the war is over, but crying over over thousands of US dead is both melodramatic and inaccurate. Do me a favor and look up Drunk driving, rape, or cancer death statistics in the US for the same time period. Or look up Iraqi civilian casualty numbers for the war.
 
[quote name='abrannan']


3. Pimpin *8* more years of Bush? Failed Civics in high school, didn't you?[/quote]


Wartime presidents can serve a 3rd term.

The only civics i knew back then were the back of my asian friends pimped out Honda Civics.
 
[quote name='coolcato']If Bush is reelected it would be the single most disguting thing this country ever did.[/quote]

yeah, I guess those japanese internment camps weren't so bad after all.



[quote name='coolcato']In all seriousness, if Bush wins this election I'm going to move to a different country and apply for citizenship there (I have the means to and no family to consider) because I will be embarrassed and disgusted to be considered a citizen of a country that feels it can ignore gross scandals and practices.[/quote]

More games for us!
 
Really? I googled and got hits refering to clinton running a 3rd term election based on wartime neccessity. I will look for a better link tho after i get outta shower.
 
[quote name='Medium_Pimpin'][quote name='abrannan']


3. Pimpin *8* more years of Bush? Failed Civics in high school, didn't you?[/quote]


Wartime presidents can serve a 3rd term.

.[/quote]


JHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAA, dang thanks for my morning laugh, ah gonna be a great day today cause I KNOW I won't hear anything more stupid than that today.


Ex-cellent.
 
Amendment XXII:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Your US Constitution says it all. The second section only discusses the ratification of the ammendment.
 
[quote name='Medium_Pimpin']Really? I googled and got hits refering to clinton running a 3rd term election based on wartime neccessity. I will look for a better link tho after i get outta shower.[/quote]


There was some debate this year as to whether a past president (such a Clinton who had 2 terms) could be Vice President---topic kindof died off though the debate was whether one could be elected Vice President and still become President if the ELected president died.



There was also some discussion about repealling the amendment that limits term limits for presidents. Which I think is a good idea, if you have a great president why force he or she out? 12 years of Reagan? 12 years of Clinton? wouldn't that be better than having the 1 termers like Bush, (next Bush :) ) Carter, Ford,
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're going to see Kerry get burried in a landslide. I've been saying 42 states for months and months now. I'm probably high. However since Kerry's behind by 5 points in Pennsylvania, up to 8 points in Florida which are both huge electoral states you can pretty much write Kerry off.

It doesn't matter what the nationwide popular vote is. It doesn't matter what these nationwide polls say. What matters is polls in battleground states and Bush has leads in states with more electoral votes.

Count on it bubba.[/quote]

While I don't trust polls, the last several in Pennsylvania have shown Kerry leading by several percentage points. I had heard that Florida was a draw at this point.
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='Cornfedwb'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're going to see Kerry get burried in a landslide. I've been saying 42 states for months and months now. I'm probably high. However since Kerry's behind by 5 points in Pennsylvania, up to 8 points in Florida which are both huge electoral states you can pretty much write Kerry off.

It doesn't matter what the nationwide popular vote is. It doesn't matter what these nationwide polls say. What matters is polls in battleground states and Bush has leads in states with more electoral votes.

Count on it bubba.[/quote]

Yes, but Democrats usually carry California, and often New York.. you can't discount those two powerhouses.[/quote]

New York and Hillary. Man, I hope that bitch nevers runs for president. That is a scary thought.[/quote]

My prediction:
The first woman president will be either Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Dole. Personally, I'd rather see Hillary be president.
 
[quote name='Cornfedwb']If that happened (and there was no proof they had been holding him all along).. it could create the biggest landslide victory in US history. It would bring back all the post-911 feelings of patriotism and ending terrorism, no matter what the cost.[/quote]

YES, BECAUSE KILLING BIN LADEN WILL END TERRORISM. FOREVER.
 
I'm not even voting this year. After what happend in the last election it kinda turned me off to politics.
 
[quote name='BigNick'][quote name='coolcato']If Bush is reelected it would be the single most disguting thing this country ever did. Not that Kerry is a great candidate, but how on earth could such a corrupt, decadent president who reigned over an unnessecary war killing thousands of American citizens needlessly and who alienated most of our allies get re-elected? Seriously, democracy exists in order to prevent peoplle like Bush from keeping power if they somehow manage to get it. This is why party politics is detructive towards democracy. Republicans largely ignore the gross problems with this president because they naturally want their party to saty in power. I honetly know republicans who, when I confront them with some of the atrocious practices of this president, either claim they are lies, or even worse, say they don't care about that. Don't care?? Isn't it essential for citizens in a democracy to keep themselves well informed of what is going on and make intelligent decisions based on this information and NOT decisions based on what party presidents belong to?
In all seriousness, if Bush wins this election I'm going to move to a different country and apply for citizenship there (I have the means to and no family to consider) because I will be embarrassed and disgusted to be considered a citizen of a country that feels it can ignore gross scandals and practices.[/quote]

Then move. You honestly think other countries have no problems? ha ha ha moron.[/quote]

Settle down Big Nick. Hes only pointing out the obvious that conservatives want to cover up. This country has gone downhill since Bush took office.
1.Terror is up.
2.Job have been lost and replaced with worse jobs.
3.Health care is going through the roof with Bush paying no attention because he is busy with Iraq.
4.Bush is blurring the line with seperation of church and state. I realize that some fools actually think this is a good thing.
5.The person responsible for killing almost 3000 Americans in one day is still running free because Bush is busy with Iraq.
6.Almost another 1000 Americans have lost their life in Iraq because of poor planning and the Bush administrations rush to war.
7.Bush policy on stem cell research show the strangle hold the religous right has on this administration. The two people leading the charge to overturn Bush policy is Nancy Reagan and Senator Orin Hatch. Both republicans.
8.Bush policy on border control is to turn a blind eye.
9.Tax cuts when the country is in the middle of a costly war on terror. Tax cuts are great but not when they cause record deficits which Greenspan has warned about on several occasions during the last several months.
10. The formation of the Homeland Security Agency which is a total mess. Anybody been in an airport lately? The security is still a joke.
11. The list goes on and on and on.
 
[quote name='kev'][quote name='coolcato']president who reigned over an unnessecary war killing thousands of American citizens needlessly [/quote]

I watch the news constantly and I don't remember this happening... I don't remember thousands of American citizens dying except on 9/11...[/quote]

We are approaching 1000 dead in Iraq.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I will pay for your airline ticket[/quote]

I will pay for your neon sign..........."I'm with stupid"
 
In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt fought for a third term while a second World War was in bitter contention abroad. The campaign pitted advocates of neutrality against those favoring support of the Allies. Again, an American president appeared to pledge U.S. noninvolvement with a promise: “I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again: your sons are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Republican hopes were dimmed by the fact that FDR’s opponent, Wendell Willkie, was nearer to the internationalist position of the president than to the views of many of his isolationist fellow Republicans. Increasingly as the campaign progressed, Roosevelt centered on national defense. Despite other matters—(the Third Term question was a hot button)—the campaign was increasingly war-driven and the outcome significant: 449 Democratic electoral votes versus 82 Republican

Source:
http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/news/spring2004/rostow.html

Wouldnt you say this president has too much power, considering the republicans control all three branches of govt?
 
[quote name='Medium_Pimpin']In 1940, Franklin Roosevelt fought for a third term while a second World War was in bitter contention abroad. The campaign pitted advocates of neutrality against those favoring support of the Allies. Again, an American president appeared to pledge U.S. noninvolvement with a promise: “I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again: your sons are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” Republican hopes were dimmed by the fact that FDR’s opponent, Wendell Willkie, was nearer to the internationalist position of the president than to the views of many of his isolationist fellow Republicans. Increasingly as the campaign progressed, Roosevelt centered on national defense. Despite other matters—(the Third Term question was a hot button)—the campaign was increasingly war-driven and the outcome significant: 449 Democratic electoral votes versus 82 Republican[/quote]

What point are you trying to illustrate with this? I see a Democratic president breaking a (very stupid) campaign promise. I see a foolish Republican party stance. I don't see how this relates to the topic.

[quote name='Medium_Pimpin']Wouldnt you say this president has too much power, considering the republicans control all three branches of govt?[/quote]

They don't have so much power that they can't be overridden. When they have a super-majority, THEN we'll worry.

And saying they control the Supreme Court is a bit of a stretch. (already see the flames)
 
Hey brainiac. When Roosevelt ran for a third term there was no Constitutional ammendment that said he couldn't run for a third term. The historical tradition was that Washington stepped down after 2 terms not wanting to become a de facto American king. Every President after him kept that tradition alive until Roosevelt. It wasn't until after his death that the idea to ratify the Constitution was brought up because it didn't nreed to be. In 1951 the XXII'nd Ammendment was ratified limiting the terms a person could serve to no more than 10 years. Read the details in the constitution itself. I already did most of your homework for you.

This "wartime" President statement is a fabrication of someone's imagination. Last but not least no one may serve as Vice President that is not legally able to hold the title of President. Therefore politicians like Bill Clinton and Arnold Swarzenegger may never serve as VP.
 
[quote name='carlagyrl']I'm not even voting this year. After what happend in the last election it kinda turned me off to politics.[/quote]

Yeah, that'll show 'em.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
This "wartime" President statement is a fabrication of someone's imagination. Last but not least no one may serve as Vice President that is not legally able to hold the title of President. Therefore politicians like Bill Clinton and Arnold Swarzenegger may never serve as VP.[/quote]

I read up on this too. One thing though, I read on a couple of different sites, that the way the constitution is worded, it could be possible for a former 2 term president to be a VP. Not trying to flame, just my 2 cents.
 
Nick, while it may be "possible" it's just not going to happen. Let's say the VP was a former President that served 8 years. He theorhetically would be able to serve out 2 years of someone's term. Then he/she would HAVE to step down due to the XXII'nd ammendment. At that point you have a political crisis for the party in question and a Constitutional crisis for the nation.

I don't think one party would ever make such a decision to put an 8 year President on a ticket as VP due to the possible consequences that would happen should the President die. While their theorhetically could be legal ambiguity due to the "two years of another term" statement and 10 year total no one is EVER going to test this with a political ticket. The fallout if they lose a Constitutional challenge after the death of a stiiting President and the forced removal of a 2 year President would be generational.

It's too much of an ugly set of "what ifs" for anyone to test.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Nick, while it may be "possible" it's just not going to happen. Let's say the VP was a former President that served 8 years. He theorhetically would be able to serve out 2 years of someone's term. Then he/she would HAVE to step down due to the XXII'nd ammendment. At that point you have a political crisis for the party in question and a Constitutional crisis for the nation.

I don't think one party would ever make such a decision to put an 8 year President on a ticket as VP due to the possible consequences that would happen should the President die. While their theorhetically could be legal ambiguity due to the "two years of another term" statement and 10 year total no one is EVER going to test this with a political ticket. The fallout if they lose a Constitutional challenge after the death of a stiiting President and the forced removal of a 2 year President would be generational.

It's too much of an ugly set of "what ifs" for anyone to test.[/quote]


I agree. but it COULD happen. JK
 
No matter how much i love reading or discussing about politics, PittsburghAfterDark ur posts arent reccomended for people with ADD
 
here's a question for those who are voting for Kerry, would you still vote for him if Bush wasn't running? Like if McCain or someone else was running as a republican? I know I shouldn't be asking hypotheticals but it's just something I've been wondering.
 
And informative it was. just took me an hour from looking at one sentence, staring at my dog, reading another sentence, watching a bird outside my window, almost finishing it, then totally forgetting what i was doing...........but oddly enough i can still read 500 page books bashing Bush.
 
[quote name='MrBrando']here's a question for those who are voting for Kerry, would you still vote for him if Bush wasn't running? Like if McCain or someone else was running as a republican? I know I shouldn't be asking hypotheticals but it's just something I've been wondering.[/quote]\
Well i would vote for a democrat usually, but If i like the guy I'd vote for a republican. I just REALLY dislike bush's actions. I recommend the book "Bush on the Couch", its about Bush's psycilogical make-up and how babyish and simple he really is
 
Kerry is not my first choice, but Bush has got to go. I would vote nader if he stood a better chance than kerry, but that aint gonna happen.
 
if ur still undecided or arent voting but dislike bush, i highly suggest vote for kerry and not nader b/c more votes for kerry=not less votes for bush, just bigger chance for Kerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top