Who voted for GW Bush?

[EdSutton]

In answer to the thread title, just enough to get him elected as President of the United States, two times.

And yes, President George W. Bush did carry Florida in 2000 by a small margin, under the majority of scenarios and credible recounts that has been done, including many done after the fact, and by groups unhappy with the outcome. To my knowledge, in most instances of credible recounts, he has carried Florida with margins of between 125 and up to ~1500 votes, with most totals not far removed from the 500-700 range. One can make a case that this was or was not correct, but the results will stand, and forever be argued about by some, IMO. One could still make the same arguments about the 1960 election, and still do, over 45 yars later. So what? 90% of the individuals who may have even voted in 1960 are deceased today, as are 95% of those that could possibly have perpetuated any shenanigans, by being old enough and powerful enough to influence anything back then. It is nothing more than an intellectual gymanstic exercise to keep harping on that.

Frankly, I am far more concerned about elections in teh future, as the influx of electronic machines becomes ever more widespread, with their potential for tampering from all sides. And if on-line voting ever becomes a reality, IMO, one has never seen fraud to the extent that will become possible from any and all sides.

Hackers are routinely breaking into all kinds of "thought to be secure" systems, just for the fun of it, in many cases, and we are seeing "identity theft" on a daily basis. What will be the effect when there is really something to "go for"?

"Hanging chads" and "butterfly ballots" will be made to look like children's toys.

So much for my little rant -

Now, back to our regularly scheduled drivel!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

What is fascism? Do you know? Explain it in your own words. Then explain how it pertains to islam. Bet ya can't.

Bet I can!

Oh, wait a minute!

I already did, a few months ago.

Ed

 

[TomVols]

1. I voted for him twice.
2. I voted for him because I believed he was the best choice available, epecially knowing Gore's history (in the 2000 race) as a Tennesseean.
3. Too soon to tell. In large measure, a lot of what he led us to do may very well historically be proven different than what appears today. For instance, Bill Clinton was considered fiscally sound, yet years later some economists give him a poor rating because of the long term effects of his fiscal policies. I fault Bush for not leading Congress to achieve SS reform, one of the biggest financial problems facing our time. I fault Bush for increasing spending more than what I believe was proper. I give Bush credit for at least attempting to solve SS. He has also appointed judges to SCOTUS that appear to be sound legal minds.

But a president's performance is not static nor immediate. Time will tell. Today, I consider Bush to be in the Carter, Pierce, Clinton, Wilson group of average presidents at best.

 

[poncho]

Bet I can!

Oh, wait a minute!

I already did, a few months ago.

Ed

Yes you did Ed and what a fine explanation it was too!

Mussolini hit the nail square on the head imho though.


“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” Benito Mussolini


Are you still here Tama?

Mutiple choice question.

The mega conglomerated transnational corporations are closer to being merged with...

A.) The mullahs and the Islamic states.

B.) Our own state

C.) I haven't got a clue but claiming muslims are "Islamofascists" is really fun.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I voted for Gore in '00, because I'm a life long Democrat.

I voted for Bush in '04, because the Democrats could not have been serious about wanting my vote after nominating that boob Kerry.

I would like to go back to the democrat party, but the Zell Millers & Joe Liebermanns are all gone. I think Hillary, & Obama are warmongering socialists. I think Edwards is a crook, liar, & a phony.

If Montana would let me, I would register as an independant. My closest party ally would now be libertarian.

 

[JustChristian]

1. I voted for him twice.
2. I voted for him because I believed he was the best choice available, epecially knowing Gore's history (in the 2000 race) as a Tennesseean.
3. Too soon to tell. In large measure, a lot of what he led us to do may very well historically be proven different than what appears today. For instance, Bill Clinton was considered fiscally sound, yet years later some economists give him a poor rating because of the long term effects of his fiscal policies. I fault Bush for not leading Congress to achieve SS reform, one of the biggest financial problems facing our time. I fault Bush for increasing spending more than what I believe was proper. I give Bush credit for at least attempting to solve SS. He has also appointed judges to SCOTUS that appear to be sound legal minds.

But a president's performance is not static nor immediate. Time will tell. Today, I consider Bush to be in the Carter, Pierce, Clinton, Wilson group of average presidents at best.

What was Gore's history? I suppose you also knew that Bush is an alcolic and was AWOL during the Viet Nam war.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Bush was a fairly decent governor. Much, much better than Perry. Of course, that's really not saying much. Huey Long was a better governor than Perry.

Bush should have stayed a decent governor, rather than becoming a lousy President.

 

[Ivon Denosovich]

A) I voted Bush twice. (Don't regret either vote.)

B) I thought (and still do) that he would be a better President than Gore & Kerry.

C) By current standards he's done Ok. By Reagan standards (read: small govt.) he's done pretty bad.

If we weren't still in Iraq, I would like him a great deal more.

 

[steaver]

Over twenty people replied and almost as many differing views!

Everyone has probably read or heard the exact same information available on GW Bush.

So why so many different conclusions on the same known facts?

Is it simply the human nature, that some folks can only see all the bad while others can only see all the good and yet few can see both? But then some judge "good" as "so-so good" and others as "excellent good". Some see bad as "so-so bad" and others see bad as "terrible bad".

Is it all merely opinion or is there a measuring stick which we can all FAIRLY judge the performance of a President?

Are we bound to our faulty human opinions?

Can we really make an honest and fair judgment?

Whats the mark? Where's the mark? How do we justly pass judgment uniformily, without mere opinion?

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

Over twenty people replied and almost as many differing views!

Everyone has probably read or heard the exact same information available on GW Bush.

So why so many different conclusions on the same known facts?

Is it simply the human nature, that some folks can only see all the bad while others can only see all the good and yet few can see both? But then some judge "good" as "so-so good" and others as "excellent good". Some see bad as "so-so bad" and others see bad as "terrible bad".

Is it all merely opinion or is there a measuring stick which we can all FAIRLY judge the performance of a President?

Are we bound to our faulty human opinions?

Can we really make an honest and fair judgment?

Whats the mark? Where's the mark? How do we justly pass judgment?

God Bless! :thumbs:

It seems there is one pattern that stands out quite strongly. It is those who voted for him in good faith came to the conclusion at various points in the last 7+ years that he was not the conservative leader he painted himself to be. This is going to be the ultimate reason for the Democrat's victory in 2008.

 

[steaver]

It seems there is one pattern that stands out quite strongly. It is those who voted for him in good faith came to the conclusion at various points in the last 7+ years that he was not the conservative leader he painted himself to be. This is going to be the ultimate reason for the Democrat's victory in 2008.

If this observation is true and "most" who voted for him believe they were misled, why are those same people SO SURE of their next choice?

I find myself outside of this group who believe Bush is not a conservative leader. I don't see the facts declaring him liberal. Some point to the increase in spending, but they cannot understand that a major military action was needed and that takes alot of money. Its like having a major medical crisis when you are already up to your eyeballs in debt but you have to borrow more to stay alive.

Did you vote for Bush in good faith?

What more can one do?

It isn't the conservatives fault for voting in good faith is it?



God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[saturneptune]

If this observation is true and "most" who voted for him believe they were misled, why are those same people SO SURE of their next choice?

I find myself outside of this group who believe Bush is not a conservative leader. I don't see the facts declaring him liberal. Some point to the increase in spending, but they cannot understand that a major military action was needed and that takes alot of money. Its like having a major medical crisis when you are already up to your eyeballs in debt but you have to borrow more to stay alive.

Did you vote for Bush in good faith?

What more can one do?

It isn't the conservatives fault for voting in good faith is it?



God Bless! :thumbs:

Well, first of all I never said most of those who voted for him. First of all, yes, I did vote for him in good faith. It may not be the conservatives fault for voting for him, but enough are angry at his liberal tendencies that they will either not vote for another Bush type candidate or vote third party.

How has Bush shown he is not conservative?
You can make light of the balanced budget, but that is a mark of a conservative, military action or not. You pay for what you spend. You don't put things on a credit card.

He failed to reform Social Security and Medicare with a Republican Congress for six years.

He added a huge government benefit to Medicare in the form of perscription drugs.

He supported a bill to give illegal aliens a form of amnesty.

He failed miserably to control the borders, then sends two border patrol agents to jail for doing their job.

He failed to lead in a manner which would have bought quick victory to Iraq. One does not fight a war half way, one fights a war to win. No Mr Nice Guy.

He failed to do anything of substance on abortion with a Republican Congress and a conservative Supreme Court.

I could go on and on. There is no way this man is a conservative or a leader.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Speaking of Pres. Bush:\
//He added a huge government benefit to Medicare
in the form of perscription drugs.//

Sorry, it isn't a government paid benefit, just
a government DICTATED benefit.
My wife's medication payements skyrocketed.
There are at least 3 meds that I guess the 70+
crowd doesn't get to take

 

[TomVols]

What was Gore's history? I suppose you also knew that Bush is an alcolic and was AWOL during the Viet Nam war.

Oh please It's not 2000, BB. You know that. Hacks need to give up.

I suppose Gore Sr's pulling of strings is okay in your eyes in Nam? And Bush admitted to using alcohol too much while Gore admitted to using weed too much. I suppose you give him a pass for that. I give neither one a pass, although who among us is without sin?

If you want to live in 2000, have at it. It's 2008, and I look forward to a good year...and a fun caucus result tonight.

 

[poncho]

Oh please It's not 2000, BB. You know that. Hacks need to give up.

I suppose Gore Sr's pulling of strings is okay in your eyes in Nam? And Bush admitted to using alcohol too much while Gore admitted to using weed too much. I suppose you give him a pass for that. I give neither one a pass, although who among us is without sin?

If you want to live in 2000, have at it. It's 2008, and I look forward to a good year...and a fun caucus result tonight.

Yeah. Lets all run out and vote for a CFR member today. It's easy enough to do. Vote for any candidate but Ron Paul.