Something To Remember About U.S. Politics

[SlowwHand]

No, that's a known fact.
Completely different subject.

As a for instance on THIS subject, go back and look at events throughout history.
Kennedy, and the Cuban missle crisis immediately comes to mind.
It doesn't have to be the wimpass Al Queda.

[Ben Kenobi]

As a for instance on THIS subject, go back and look at events throughout history. Kennedy, and the Cuban missle crisis immediately comes to mind.

Also known for the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and for being considered 'soft on communism.'

[Dauphin]

AKA, winners right the historybooks.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

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.

Of course, I have to agree with you here, since the American people elected Gore. The Electoral College, on the other hand, elected Bush.

Meanwhile, care to justify...
Hoover over Al Smith in 1928?
Wilson over Theodore Roosevelt in 1912?
Harrison over Grover Cleveland in 1888? (a mistake the public itself corrected in 1892)
JQ Adams over Andrew jackson in 1824?
J Adams over Thomas Jefferson in 1796?

And those are just the obvious ones...

[uh Clem]

If Gore had been inaugurated, after 9-11 even Republicans would have been saying, "Thank God that imbecile Bush isn't President!"

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Japher
...
In maritime we generally elect those with more buisness oriented attitudes. During wars we elect generals...

You are always in war. Name one president after 1940 who didn't launch military attacks against other nations.

[oedo]

I go with Sava´s statement here. if Gore would have become president, 9-11 would never have happened. this is about as impossible to prove as it is to disprove, but so is Slowwhand’s hypothesis.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by oedo
I go with Sava´s statement here. if Gore would have become president, 9-11 would never have happened. this is about as impossible to prove as it is to disprove, but so is Slowwhand’s hypothesis.

Nah, Sloww's hypothesis is easy to disprove; see the examples in my previous post.

As for Gore v. Bush, I think 9-11 would still have happened. But consider:

Gore might not have bombed Afghanistan. Result: Taliban still in power, Osama has a hiding place we can't get to. Bush bombed Afghanistan. Result: the Taliban are driven from power but are agressively regrouping; Osama still, apparently, has a hiding place we can't get to, and the place has become a bloody, anarchic mess.

Gore probably wouldn't have signed USA PATRIOT. Bush did.

Gore wouldn't have cut taxes. Result: a sluggish economy but a balanced federal budget. Bush cut taxes. Result: a sluggish economy and a massive deficit, one that even Bush's best projections indicate will be around for years and will greatly increase the federal debt.

Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq without UN approval. Result: Saddam is still in power, but isolated, and the US still commands the respect of other nations. Bush does invade Iraq. Result: Saddam falls from power. Also, a protracted occupation with no clear end in sight, costing in excess of $1 billion/week; loss of respect and cooperation of much of the rest of the world, including close allies; the likely emergence of an Islamic state in Iraq in the near- to middle-future.

I don't know exactly what kind of president Gore would have been, but I'm having trouble seeing a clear-cut case for Bush's superiority.

[Saint Marcus]

Of course, I have to agree with you here, since the American people elected Gore. The Electoral College, on the other hand, elected Bush.

hmm...a very good point.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Japher
During wars we elect generals. Though I don't understand Carter, but hey!?

Thus the elections of Gen. Jefferson, Gen. Madison, Gen. Lincoln, Gen. McKinley, Gen. Wilson, Gen. Roosevelt, and Gen. Nixon? WTF?

I'm having trouble thinking of a general other than Eisenhower whom we did elect during wartime. I think you are today's proud recipient of the Gary Coleman Award -- as in, "What you talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

[CerberusIV]

The problem with Sloww's hypothesis is that it rests on the faulty assumption that the President actually does anything or has any real influence.

As it is all decided by the people who paid for his election and pull the strings behind the scenes - but who they are only becomes apparent AFTER the election - who actually sits in the Oval Office doesn't really matter.

[Sava]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, this is your MO... you don't have any information to base your opinions on... so you personally attack...

My opinions are based upon information that I've read about the transition between Clinton and Bush governments. Educate yourself Sloww, then maybe you can be on the same level with people who know what they are talking about.

read "Bush at War" by Bob Woodward...
read "The Great Unraveling" by Paul Krugman...
search the net and learn about who Richard Clarke is...
learn about the Hart-Rudman report...

after taking office... Bush launched a massive operation aimed at terrorism dubbed, "Operation Ignore". The Bush admin even attacked Clinton holdovers Richard Clarke and George Tenet as being "absolutely frantic" and "obsessed with terrorism" prior to 9-11.

I really don't know for sure what would have happened with Gore in office. But one thing I can be certain of, Gore wouldn't have ignored his two top counter-terrorism experts when they were crying wolf.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
As for Gore v. Bush, I think 9-11 would still have happened. But consider:

You can't say any of that would have happened this way or that. Nearly every war we fought in the 20th Century was started when a Democrat was in office. It was under two Demcratic presidents, Wilson and Turman, that the worst anti-left repression in the US began. It was under other Democratic presidents: Kennedy and Johnson, that COINTELPRO reached its greatest extent. Under the Democrat Clinton, we staved a million Iraqis to death.

Bush may be a partiularly venal, stupid, and corrupt President, but in terms of war and domestic repression, he's not really that far removed from most of our previous Presidents.

As for the deficit, deficit spending during a recession can be a good thing, provided it's properly targetted. This is where his stupidity and corruption make a difference, since this deficit isn't targetted to stimuating the economy.

[Atahualpa]

hihi

funny thread, but...






....completely pointless

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush may be a partiularly venal, stupid, and corrupt President, but in terms of war and domestic repression, he's not really that far removed from most of our previous Presidents.

Maybe thats because of his err his daddy's advisors?

maybe,.. could.. be *cough* possible ?