Jump to content

Why do people still support Bush?


sunshine

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Bush's military service is questionable but Kerry's is ALOT worse.

Kerry claimed that his unit commited war atrocities worse than Mei Lai. Yet, he did not turn them in. Which is dishonest, I certainly would have turned them in, including myself if I participated.

However, if Kerry lied about the atrocities they commited, that still makes him dishonest.

Kerry won't do crap with Iraq and Afghanistan. In my opinion, we need a president that has the guts to continue the fighting in those two countries. I don't care if we have to massacre Al Qaida and the other terrorist organizations, they need to be eliminated, and they need to be killed/captured NOW.

Even alot of the people I know of who supported Gore last election are now going to be for Bush, or they won't vote at all. My family is independent and we vote for who we think is better. And in my opinion, Bush is alot better.

If Kerry is elected, it will be completely his fault when we are attacked again, or if N. Korea develops nuclear weapons. With Bush, we won't be attacked at home again, and N. Korea won't have the guts to try and develop nuclear weapons.

Like I said, I would like a president who is willing to invade Cuba, Somalia, and help the Phillipines with the terrorism. I also want a president who will help Israel with peace talks and will try and help limit the palestinians power peacefully.

If we back out of war with the terrorists, they will have succeded in their mission, to make the USA back down!!!!!!!!!!!!! And being the world's only superpower, we CANNOT let that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush's military service is questionable but Kerry's is ALOT worse.

No it isn't. Kerry actually served and earned his medals.

End of story.

Devin, if you want to rant and rave about how Bush is the best leader throughout this just because he's pro-war to the extreme - fine. But in my opinion having someone who is trigger happy does not make us "safer" - but could potentially make us less secure. I genuinely feel as if Kerry would take us to war when necessary, but be FAR MORE RESPONSIBLE about it. Kerry wasn't my first choice for the nominee, but I certainly like him *considerably* more then the alternative.

Scott - I'm sick, disgusted, and upset with how the entire northeastern part of the country is stereotyped, bashed, and called names with on this.

Bob Novak - I'm sure you know who he is - called everyone in Vermont nutheads in reference to their vote for Dean to show their support. And that is just the beginning, he said some more choice words.

Now Bush is labeling everything northeasterner as evil.

My question is - how do you stereotype, bash, and put a box around so many people and consider it one thing? And why is it automatically bad??

Isn't Bush supposed to be "inclusive" afterall? Welcoming everyone, with his *compassionate* conservatism?

Its a load of B.S.

And furthermore, why are they holding the RNC convention in NYC if northeastern liberals are going to be the downfall of this country?

HELLO. Republicans are nothing more then scum - opportunistic and hypocritical at the same time.

Bash the northeast as the political evil of the nation - yet hold your convention there just to suck every last ounce of 9/11 political milk from the cow.

Republican = scum in 2004...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care if we have to massacre Al Qaida and the other terrorist organizations, they need to be eliminated, and they need to be killed/captured NOW.

Really, you should educate yourself about how these things work before pontificating so. If it were so easy as killing everyone in Al Qaida we would have done so by now. The whole situtation is a lot more complicated than you seem to realize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will point out that Bush was elected to office without a majority of the population voting for him.

So was Clinton TWICE!

1996: Bill Clinton won 49.24% of the vote!!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/sp...esults1996.html

1992: Bill Clinton won 42.95% of the vote!!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/sp...esults1992.html

1988: George Bush won 53%

1984: Ron Reagan won 58%

1980: Ron Reagan won 50.75%

etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

Yeah, with the system of the electoral college we have in this country, getting the majority of the votes is not required.

Some states do allow you to win college votes even if you don't carry the entire state, other states whoever wins the state gets all of the votes. 2000 certainly wasn't the only time in history that it has happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

donal, that is correct, but with the Clinton thing, he got less then 50% because Perot split the vote in '92 and '96 I think it was 11% in '92 and 8% in '96, so with 3 horses in the race you'd have to REALLY do well to get above 50% (an even distribution then would have been 50-25-25? So you see the affect of the election math.) This might be mocked as a small point

"oh so what, it was a few % pts. off from a majority but it was still a CLEAR plurality (the biggest # of all candidates) and thats more then Bush had in 2000"

BUT ISN'T that the whole point isn't our president supposed to represent the MAJORITY of all Americans?? 50%+ the last time we had a president who did was Bush Sr. in 1988, both Clinton and Bush Jr. were elected by a MINORITY of the voters!!

Add to all this that the AVERAGE voter turnout of all ELIGIBLE voters in the last 25 years is something like 50.6% and this is not democracy in action . . .

So to add the math up here Clinton got 42% of only HALF of the voting population in 1992, so really only 21% of all eligible voters cast a vote for him? that made him President THAT IS PATHETIC, but we only have ourselves to blame, most Americans don't vote (at least half) and the others who do don't really study the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clinton was well liked, by about 21% in '92 and by about 24% in '96. the U.S. has serious problems when close to a majority of the nation does NOT vote, and out of the 49-51% who do a MAJORITY of them can't be formed for a leader WITH a mandate. 1988 was the last time we had a majority elected president. The last 3 times the MAJORITY spoke the GOP won, won and won!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

An economy where millions of jobs have been lost, with an uncaring President who is quite happy to see millions more of these jobs outsourced overseas

Still blaming Bush for the economy? And stopping outsourcing of jobs is probably the job of congress, not the president. Probably would need the Presidents support, but they would have to pass the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest donaltopablo

I don't give him credit when the economy does well, I don't knock him when it does badly. At least to this point, there is nothing he has done that I would credit him with in either direction. Politicans try to take credit for all kinds of things, and try to blame the other party for all kinds of things. I'd rather know better, than to just place blame for the sake of placing blame, just because he like to just take credit. Maybe instead of blaming him, we should look at getting congress off of their ass and getting us a real solution to jobs outsourcing (which is find a better way to keep them here) and the poor (although thankfully improving) economy.

I do agree with governments not outsourcing jobs (small percantage is fine). I would rather pay slightly higher taxes to know the money in staying in the country. I don't think there should be a limit on businesses outsourcing jobs. I think the US should work to be more competitive for the types of jobs that are going over there, and I think the government can help with that, but I don't think they should just put outright limits on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a nice idea, both republicans and democrats are idiots. especially for focusing on politics and ripping each other apart. This isn't a war for reputation or ego. This should be a war for the better of the nation.

My family is independent. We vote for whoever is "better", in this case, I believe it's Bush. I would support Kerry, but he made terrible choices in Vietnam and he isn't willing to support and further the war of terrorism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kerry is far from comparing to Bush on the Vietnam issue, just because you fight doesn't mean you are better than someone who dodges the draft or doesn't enlist.

Kerry claimed his unit committed a war atrocity worse than Mei Lai, yet... He didn't turn any of his buddy's in. Either he was lying about the war crime, or he wasn't honest enough to turn in himself and his squadmates.

If you and your buddies commit war crimes, then you deserve to go to jail and should turn yourselves in.

I would much rather have a president who didn't go to war and didn't kill innocent civilians. Also, we wouldn't have fought in Nam if it wasn't for a democrat, Johnson. Of course, it wasn't his fault, it was the militaries fault we got false reports of attacks on pt boats...

Like it isn't Bush's or Clinton's fault 9/11 wasn't prevented.

Just because you are in the opposite party, and just because that person is the top dog doesn't mean you can blaim everything on him.

It's the democrats fault Iraq is going nuts, they made Bush pull too many troops out at once.

Now remember, I'm not a republican, and I'm not a democrat.

Politics is too dang bloodthirsty these days, they need to stop focusing on their reputations and their parties and focus on their beliefs and do what they think is right, and try not to shoot their opponent down.

^sorry for the length, I just had to get everything out that has been going through my mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 4/20/2004 covering the protests of Kerry and Bush and Cheney (all in the city within days of each other):

20040420cc_goodrumPJ_450.jpg

I WANT ONE OF THOSE SHIRTS, read it c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y :D:D:D:lol::blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To understand the situation in the middle east properly,one has to look beyond American internal politics(which I know nothing about).The turmoil in the middle east has been going on for a long time,and empires have come and gone.The revolt that is happening to coalition forces at present in Iraq,also happened to the British in 1920.In fact Iraq was under the control of Britain until about 1960,and despot Saddam Hussein hated Britain and Israel and any country that supported Israel.One of the great things that the USA is widely respected for in the wider world is that under the Marshall Plan,it restructured both Japan and Germany as successful countries,at the end of WW2.After 9/11 my country,Australia was the first to support USA with forces,in the war on terrorism.Today,25th April our PM Howard is in Bagdad thanking our forces,and saying they will need to stay longer to finish the job.These rogue elements are a menace to the whole free world and the coalition forces must complete the job. I saw on tv 2 nights back one of American aircraft carriers pulling into Perth with 6000 sailors going on rest and leave after being in the Persian Gulf for 6 months.They looked pretty happy to be coming ashore here. cheers,kota16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.