Political matters : Will Bush make it ?

[Ivan]

Personally think that Mr Bush performed pretty badly during last pressconference, where he got pinned down by the press reps. I mean come on, saying that if US citizens wote against him they wote against fighting terrorism is the last resort you can think of, that going against public polls and all.
When asked <dont remember exact question> : " What was your most crucial mistake and what have you learned from it? " , Mr Bush says he cant think of any mistakes at all that he has made. Despite .....
Pre-emptively invading a country that was wrongly presumed to have biological weaponry of mass destruction, for which CIA got blamed.
Accusing previous apparatus of incompetence that resulted in 11.09.

Mr Bush is going the right way to become my personal hero. Doubt he will get re-elected although im yet unaware of any other serious contendant.

So, like subject states, Will Mr Bush make it and why/why not ?

 

[Mofo8]

My favourite bit was when a reporter asked him an unscripted question. 5 seconds of silence as he waited for the voices in his earpiece to start feeding him an answer. LOL

QUESTION: "Thank you, Mr. President.

In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?"

BUSH: "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet."

 

[Munkey]

doesnt reflect well on his ability to make split descisions then does it.

Tbh he really is an idiot. I quite like the other guy running for presidency, Kerry i think his name is.

 

[ECA]

Bush is a clown, a mouthpiece, a figurehead a talking fucking monkey.

The only reason people get elected is because they win over the spoonfed retards.

Minimum IQ to vote of 20% over the average please. It might help a little bit.

 

[Lazarus]

I think Bush's biggest mistake was indicating that he was invading due to indications of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If he had simply said that he was invading to oust the tyrant Hussain, im sure he would have a lot more backing.

 

[xane]

Despite the way it appears, I am no fan of Bush, but you also have to consider the other hopeful and whether he can defeat the popular support that Bush has with most Americans.

A lot of Bush criticism comes from outside the US, so from here in the UK our view is a bit distorted. Support for the Afghan and Iraq Conflict and the "War On Terror" and all that follows is still quite high amongst most US citizens, even the most bullish anti- polls will reveal that.

Kerry is now fighting Bush on imcompetance, on both home and foreign issues, and not on whether strategic decisions like Iraq were wrong or not, he has attracted the support of the general anti-war crowd too, who TBH are likely to be Democrat anyway, but he is not going to say he is anti-war himself. I think that Bush started off on a low point of being viewed as a stupid monkey faced moron, and he has actually gained ground since, it'll be a tough job putting that view back in place considering he did in fact have the balls to kick Saddam's ass, Americans like that sort of thing.

What is working against Kerry is the legacies of his predecessors; the Clinton administration and the continued stupidity of Al Gore, the recent 9/11 investigation is actually revealing more mistakes and missed opportunities were made by Clinton and is damaging in that area rather than showing up Bush.

People remember Clinton as a liar and an adulterer, not great for the religiously inspired, still which dominate America. Now he's slowly being seen as a ineffective leader too, who might have been able to avoid the bloodshed of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq by taking more pre-emptive action.

No matter how stupid Bush looks, Kerry has to shrug off this Democrat image. I can't comment on the man himself as I've not read a lot since his selection for candidate.

I'd put my money on Bush winning, only just, but by more of a margin than before, but I'd also say the turnout will be higher which will work in the Democrat's favour, which would lower the margin, but I don't think by enough.

Kerry is good, but the American public nearly always prefer the devil they know, which is why second terms are popular.

 

[ECA]

Bush won last time? half a million less votes as I recall.

Do you mean he's going to get 1 million less votes and still win?

 

[xane]

No, I am saying Bush will get more votes, but that will be reduced by a higher turnout (of voters against him).

 

[Ivan]

Cant edit my post, has a few spellihng mistakes there, still wonder how i managed to .... type wote... instead of vote.

 

[Will]

Bush won last time? half a million less votes as I recall.

Do you mean he's going to get 1 million less votes and still win?

The strange American system of electoral colleges is partially to blame for this. I don't even want to try to explain it.

 

[Stimpy]

I don't think he has a hope in hell of winning the next election, I couldn't stop laughing when he told the reporter he wished they had given him the question ahead of time, how can you have a president that is to stupid to answer a question and needs a team of writers to produce everything he has to say.

 

[Wij]

The strange American system of electoral colleges is partially to blame for this. I don't even want to try to explain it.

Our electoral system is just as fucked. Labour have been fiddling quite a lot since they got in power to make it work in their favour.

(disclaimer: Tabloid stories only seen so far. If you can find more evidence for or against feel free)

 

[Tom]

I don't think he has a hope in hell of winning the next election, I couldn't stop laughing when he told the reporter he wished they had given him the question ahead of time, how can you have a president that is to stupid to answer a question and needs a team of writers to produce everything he has to say.

What, like Prime Minister's questions, or Question Time (BBC1)?

 

[Huntingtons]

i sure hope he doesnt get elected again, but i dont know alot about Kerry either, so hard to make a pick (well its not, but wouldnt be fair to dump a stupid president for an even more stupid one [again, that will be hard to get an even more stupid])..

OT:

any remember when that high ranked general in the US army claimed that Bush were put on earth by god etc? he said: "how can he be president then when he didn't win the election"

 

[xane]

Our electoral system is just as fucked. Labour have been fiddling quite a lot since they got in power to make it work in their favour.

The UK electoral system was seriously screwed by the Poll Tax way back, by linking the ability to vote with ability to pay local taxes ("rates"). Lets be honest and admit that most people who avoid paying things like rates are hardly going to be Tory voters, therefore it was a good excuse to wipe a lot of non-Tory voters off the electoral lists.

The revised Poll Tax has not helped either, it still links ability to pay with ability to vote, people who wish to avoid paying Poll Tax will still not register and thus wont vote, although payment is no longer "per person", the link is still there.

Labour would have to go a long way to make up for this, but seeing as nowdays most Poll Tax dodgers wouldn't vote for them anyway I doubt it would make any difference.

 

[Wij]

The UK electoral system was seriously screwed by the Poll Tax way back, by linking the ability to vote with ability to pay local taxes ("rates"). Lets be honest and admit that most people who avoid paying things like rates are hardly going to be Tory voters, therefore it was a good excuse to wipe a lot of non-Tory voters off the electoral lists.

The revised Poll Tax has not helped either, it still links ability to pay with ability to vote, people who wish to avoid paying Poll Tax will still not register and thus wont vote, although payment is no longer "per person", the link is still there.

Labour would have to go a long way to make up for this, but seeing as nowdays most Poll Tax dodgers wouldn't vote for them anyway I doubt it would make any difference.

Quite true. Very good scam by the Tories too there

 

[mr.Blacky]

Why? I think that it aint wrong to pay for your vote, in a way it rewards people that care for their country.

 

[Wij]

Why? I think that it aint wrong to pay for your vote, in a way it rewards people that care for their country.

In principle it's great but when the party that brings it in knows full well that it is likely to effect the other party more than them

 

[Tom]

Why? I think that it aint wrong to pay for your vote, in a way it rewards people that care for their country.

There are a great many people who refused in good conscience to pay the poll tax. These are normal, law-abiding people, who considered the poll tax unfair. To deny these people the right to vote is only beneficial to the government of the day, and not to society as a whole.

Of course, there are also a few lazy twunts who just didn't want to pay any tax and used the above as an excuse.

I don't believe its right to exclude any citizens from voting, it doesn't really matter what contribution they have made (or not), they are resident here and have a right to their opinion. Any government that runs scared of that principle is obviously either doing something wrong, or doing everything right.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Hmm I had to check up what poll tax ment.

These are normal, law-abiding people

Well not law abiding anymore

As for it being a fair law, I still don't know. If you pay for your right to vote more people might vote (out of those that are allowed to vote)
Again I still don't know off course there are negative things but somewhere I believe the positive things out weigh the negative aspects of poll tax.

The political side hmmm are you saying that Labour gets lots of votes from people who don't care about their country? Yeah I know poor people would vote labour but was the poll tax just a rise off taxes? In Holland there is a progressive tax system, the more you earn the more taxes you pay, and tbh I don't think that is fair.

 

[Wij]

Poll-tax was uber-regressive (yay, economics A-level.) Pay the same no matter what you earn. Hence the people who object to it are more likely to be left-wing. I.E. Not Tory voters

 

[Will]

Hence the people who object to it are more likely to be left-wing. I.E. Not Tory voters

I.e. Poor people.

There was also a one year testing period, in Scotland. I'm fairly confident someone in the cabinet at the time will have (behind closed doors) uttered the line "The Jocks never vote for us anyway".

And didn't the previous introduction of poll tax (long long time ago) lead to civil war?

 

[Tom]

In Holland there is a progressive tax system, the more you earn the more taxes you pay, and tbh I don't think that is fair.

In a fair system, the amount of tax you're charged should be directly linked to your ability to pay.

Charging everyone the same is just silly.

 

[Driwen]

In a fair system, the amount of tax you're charged should be directly linked to your ability to pay.

Charging everyone the same is just silly.

yes, but in netherlands the percentage you pay is also increased (so 10% of your salary for low income and 30% for the higher ones (numbers are made up though could be 50% for higher ones and 5% for all i know)).
Anyway I still think the system we use is good, as the rich can afford to pay more taxes and probably use the things the taxes pay for more aswell (for one theatres and operas are often goverment funded, which are more often visited by rich people than poor).

 

[Will]

yes, but in netherlands the percentage you pay is also increased (so 10% of your salary for low income and 30% for the higher ones (numbers are made up though could be 50% for higher ones and 5% for all i know)).

Like the higher and lower rates for income tax we have here in the UK?

For all the non-UK residents, the poll tax was a tax which was paid directly to the local council, it wasn't a national tax. The levels were set locally, and the momeny was spent locally.

 

[]AC[dRuM]

I try to refrain from political debate on a forum but what the heck this is how I see it.(Briefly), this reply is aimed at the anti Blaire / Bush percentage, which is cool after all we are lucky enough to live in a democracy and not a dictatorship.

Bush and Blaire were both democratically elected by their relevant nations and in doing so we the people (or at least those that bothered to vote) charged them with the responsibility of leading our nations. So really if you have democratically elected leaders in power that make a decision that you don't particularly like I'm afraid it is tough at the end of the day. The course of action laid before you are as follows :

a) Vote in the first place.
b) Pay more attention to party manifestos.
c) Take part in constructive demonstration and pressure groups.
d) Vote for someone else.

Above is all that can be offered to us in a peaceful, free thinking and democratic society, to think that the intelligence service would change or a different course of action would have been taken if someone else was in power is very naive indeed.

Do I think the coalition forces made the right decision, yes I do on the grounds that sever human rights violations were going on in Iraq, but only on those grounds, there are many other countries were the same caries on to this day and yet nothing is done about it, China to name one.

Do I feel the Iraqi people will be better off without the SH regime in place, yes I do. Its going to be a long and treacherous road to follow but hopefully with Iraqs potential wealth channeled in the right direction they stand a good chance of becoming a great nation once again.

Do I feel we the western world should have a zero tolerance policy on all forms of terrorism, yes I do.

Were the killing of innocent civilians during the Iraq war a terrible loss, yes, but the hundreds of thousands killed since 1979 would have continued if SH had not have been removed from power.

Thats my bit and I'm afraid whatever anybody says or does will not change my opinion. I've said it before and I'll say it again my heart goes out to the hundreds of thousands of innocent victims that died at the hands of SH since 1979, including those caught up in this terrible (ongoing) war.

But to the question at hand.....

Do I feel Bush and Blair had to make the toughest decision of their lives that has possibly annihilated their political careers, yes I do.

As a last note G.W.Bush made this statement almost a year ago to this day, believe me when I say I am not naive of the corruption and cloak and dagger activities of our othwerwise civilised society and their security forces, but do I honestly believe Bush meant what he said, yes I do, because we all know that the sever human rights atrocities spanning many years were a reality not lies.



In the new era that is coming to Iraq, your country will no longer be held captive to the will of a cruel dictator. You will be free to build a better life, instead of building more palaces for Saddam and his sons, free to pursue economic prosperity without the hardship of economic sanctions, free to travel and speak your mind, free to join in the political affairs of Iraq. And all the people who make up your country – Kurds, Shi’a, Turkomans, Sunnis, and others – will be free of the terrible persecution that so many have endured.

The nightmare that Saddam Hussein has brought to your nation will soon be over. You are a good and gifted people – the heirs of a great civilisation that contributes to all humanity. You deserve better than tyranny and corruption and torture chambers. You deserve to live as free people. And I assure every citizen of Iraq: your nation will soon be free.

George W Bush - President of the United States - April 10, 2003

 

[Wij]

yes, but in netherlands the percentage you pay is also increased (so 10% of your salary for low income and 30% for the higher ones (numbers are made up though could be 50% for higher ones and 5% for all i know)).
Anyway I still think the system we use is good, as the rich can afford to pay more taxes and probably use the things the taxes pay for more aswell (for one theatres and operas are often goverment funded, which are more often visited by rich people than poor).

Taxes go more on Health, Education (richer people may go private but still have to pay the tax), defence and welfare.

Poorer people are more likely to consume the first. Arguably the second too. The third makes no difference. Welfare is obviously more consumed by the poor.

Taxes paying for operas indeed :/ Why don't you get a lottery like us ?

/edited for reasons of not realising you were talking about dutch government.

 

[xane]

You can argue that Health and Education of (poorer) working people ultimately benefit the (richer) ones who employ them. It makes sense to have a healthy and smart workforce, if the government did not provide it then the employer probably would.

This is a known phenomena, during the throes of expansion and colonialism, and even more during the industrial revolution, private companies would frequently provide schooling and doctors to their employees, and in even the most capitalist economies today, like America, there is government provided healthcare and education.

Although "the poor" may be the _direct_ consumer of state health and education, it is everyone, and more specifically the industry proprietors and investors, who ultimately benefit. It makes sense because it makes money

In a swift attempt to turn the thread back on course, it is in fact matters such as health and education in America that are more likely to determine Bush's success in the election, not his foreign policy, and there has been a huge health "scandal" over Medicare in recent months.

 

[Driwen]

In a swift attempt to turn the thread back on course, it is in fact matters such as health and education in America that are more likely to determine Bush's success in the election, not his foreign policy, and there has been a huge health "scandal" over Medicare in recent months.

I dont follow american politics to well, but have foreign policy ever been more than a minor factor in the elections?

 

[Tom]

Bush and Blaire were both democratically elected by their relevant nations and in doing so we the people (or at least those that bothered to vote) charged them with the responsibility of leading our nations.

<snip>

b) Pay more attention to party manifestos.

Just a minor point, Blair was not elected to be leader of the country by the general public, but by his party

As for b), I suggest you ignore them completely, and vote the the candidate who you feel best represents your interests at a local level.