Something To Remember About U.S. Politics

[SlowwHand]

Voter's in the United States always seem to be able to elect the Presidential candidate that's best, for that point in time.

Go back and look at elections throughout history, and you'll see it's so.
You don't have to love President Bush, to acknowledge he was better than Gore, for this point in time.

[Saint Marcus]

[SlowwHand]

Since you don't count.. .

[pchang]

Hmmm

Well, Bush vs. Gore may not be the best way to look at things. There were a lot of other people running who got eliminated in the primaries. What about Bush vs. McCain? I think a fair analysis would have to include all the guys from the primaries too.

[Kropotkin]

It's obvious that such a statement is based on nothing but a vivid imagination. Move along people, nothing to see!

[Sava]

[el freako]

Re: Something To Remember About U.S. Politics

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Voter's in the United States always seem to be able to elect the Presidential candidate that's best, for that point in time.

Go back and look at elections throughout history, and you'll see it's so.
You don't have to love President Bush, to acknowledge he was better than Gore, for this point in time.

What a load of crap.

You can't know that the presidents elected were the better ones because you can't re-run time to see how the loser of the election would have dealt with the issues.

[Sava]

good point el freako...

since Slowwy brought up Gore, it's fair to say that I think 9-11 would probably have not happened if Gore were in office. Bush took Clinton's recommendations on Counter-Terror and basically moth-balled them after he took office. The Homeland Security reorganization... written by Clinton people... the war in Afghanistan... written by Clinton people. With all the chatter and activity before 9-11, it's quite possible just a little more scrutiny would have been given to airport security, and maybe Mohammed Atta gets stopped and detained.

It's really irrelevant to discuss such hypotheticals, but I only do so to point out how wrong SLoww is.

[Kirnwaffen]

It's totally a non-issue, but, for posterity, I'd like to point out something:

Better != Good.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
It's totally a non-issue, but, for posterity, I'd like to point out something:

Better != Good.

tru dat

[Japher]

Sloww's on the right track, IMO... I won't agree that the elected candidate was the BEST, but they work, and they work and have worked well enough to get the US to where it is today; a HYPERPOWER!!!

Roosevelt good for sustaining war
Truman good to end it
Same with Kennedy, Nixon, Eisenhower...

In maritime we generally elect those with more buisness oriented attitudes. During wars we elect generals. Though I don't understand Carter, but hey!?

Anyway, I think Clinton did a have way decent job and prepared us for this trying time we are in now. Bush is good because he is stubborn and won't let other countries push us around and determine what is best for us, our way of life, and our national security... Three things I think Gore would of folded in on himself with...

Anyway, we will never know. Lets just continue to argue on who the best candidate is and go out and vote... THe nation has spoken...

[SlowwHand]

Sava. I don't know anyone more full of crap.
The next presidential change, whenever it happens, count on a terrorist act to test the new President.
Guaran****ingteed.

[FrustratedPoet]

I wasn't aware that Al Qaeda considered itself to be an examination board for recently elected public officials.

[SlowwHand]

Now you do.

[FrustratedPoet]

Excellent. Was that the great and mysterious announcement? I know that my life will never be the same after that.